Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


3 1223 03273 6705 

San Francisco Public Library 

>(\ Center 

■!. 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 9<4 


Not to be taken from the Library 

no. 10 








ROOM 113 



APR 7 1995 


MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1995 
1:44 P.M. 
































ROOM 113 

MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1995 
1:44 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 

3 1223 03273 6705 









9 GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 
10 pat WEBB, Committee Secretary 
U RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 




Northern California Women's Facility, Stockton 
Department of Corrections 



16 BERTRAM RICE, JR., Warden 
California State Prison, Ironwood 

17 Department of Corrections 

18 KEVIN 0. STARR, Ph.D. 
State Librarian 




« ^r 0& %:% 3 ^ - 




Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 


Northern California Women's Facility, Stockton 

California Department of Corrections 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Hardest Part of Job 3 

Difficulties in Routine Staff Relationships ... 3 

Impact of New Conjugal Visit Policy 4 

Possibility of Making Facility a Male 

Correctional Institution 5 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Prison's Inmate Labor Program 5 

Inmate Counseling 6 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Function of Business Manager 7 

Laverne University 9 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: Letters of 

Support 10 

Motion to Confirm 10 

Committee Action 10 


California State Prison, Ironwood 11 

Background and Experience 11 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Tenure in Current Assignment 12 


1 INDEX (Continued) 

Difference in Prison Culture at Ironwood 

Facility 12 

Treatment of People Program 13 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Location of Prison 14 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Impact of New Conjugal Visit Policy 15 

Three Strikes Incarcerations 15 





Membership in Chicano Correctional Workers 

10 Association 15 

11 Motion to Confirm 16 

12 Committee Action 16 

13 KEVIN 0. STARR, Ph.D. 
State Librarian 17 



Background and Experience 17 

Statement of Support by SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP 19 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Decision by University of California at 
18 Berkeley to Drop Undergraduate Courses in 

Library Science 20 

Impact on Number of Librarians 21 

Two-tiered System of Librarians 23 




California Has Smallest Number of High 

22 School Librarians in Nation 24 

23 Need to Help High School Libraries 25 

24 Library Contributions Made through Income 
Tax Check-off 



Bookmobiles 28 

Top California Writers Currently 30 


1 INDEX ( Continued^ 

2 Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

3 Current Personal Book Projects 32 

4 Accomplishments during Career in 
San Francisco 33 






Goals for Future 34 

Library's Literacy Program 36 

Statements by SENATOR PETRI S re: 

Sign in Berkeley Public Library 37 

Statement of Support by SENATOR AYALA 38 

Motion to Confirm 39 

Committee Action 40 

Termination of Proceedings 40 

Certificate of Reporter 41 


1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 — ooOoo — 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our first appointee to meet, Mamie 

4 Lockette, please, if you will. 

5 Sometimes people like to start with some prepared 

6 opening comments. It's up to you. If you do, please. 

7 MS. LOCKETTE: Thank you. I do have something. 


9 MS. LOCKETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Chairman and Senate Committee Members, thank you 

11 ! for the opportunity to present my qualifications in 

12 consideration for approval as Warden at the Northern California 

13 Women's Facility in Stockton. 

14 My education consists of: a Bachelor's of Science 

15 j Degree in Nutrition from Tuskegee University; a dietetic 

16 j internship at the University of California Medical Center in Los 

17 Angeles; and a Master's Degree in Public Administration from 

18 Laverne University. 

19 My professional experiences include an excess of 30 

20 years in the supervisory and management ranks; 22 of those years 

21 with state government; 15 have been in the Youth and Adult 

22 Correctional Agency, and 7 in the Department of Mental Health 

23 and Developmental Services . The remaining 8 years were divided 

24 between the Los Angeles County Health Department and federally 

25 funded county health programs . 

26 I have held various and a variety of positions that 

27 have proven my professional abilities as a capable 

28 administrator. For example, my state career began at Camarillo 

1 State Hospital as Director of Dietetics. And subsequently, I 

2 promoted to Hospital Administrator. After approximately two and 

3 a half years in this position, I moved to Sacramento and became 

4 the Departmental Food Administrator for the California Youth 

5 Authority . 

6 After five years, I downgraded and lateralled to the 

7 Department of Corrections as Business Manager II at the 

8 California Institution for Men. From that position, I promoted 

9 through the rank as the Associate Warden, Business Services, at 

10 the Sierra — I'm sorry, at the California Rehabilitation 

11 Center; Associate Warden, Camp Operations at Sierra Conservation 

12 Center; Chief Deputy Warden at Sierra Conservation Center; and 

13 Assistant Deputy Director, Southern Region in CDC Headquarters, 

14 currently known as Regional Administrator South. 

15 Since October 1st of 1992, I have served as Warden of 

16 the Northern California Women's Facility. 

17 I feel that my last assignment in Headquarters for 

18 four and a half years was the most beneficial in preparing me 

19 for a wardenship. During this time, I worked directly with the 

20 ten southern regional wardens as their direct contact in 

21 Headquarters . 

22 My proactive, energetic, and goal-oriented assets 

23 have added in my ability to appreciate the differences in my 

24 staff by using their strengths to enhance the working 

25 environment and to develop others as much as possible. 

26 Finally, my parental teaching stressed strong ethics 

27 and moral values, the importance of good work ethics, and from a 

28 Biblical focus, respect for all individuals. 

1 Thank you. 

2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

3 Maybe you could tell me what is the hardest part of 

4 this job? 

5 MS. LOCKETTE: Excluding what I'm going through now, 

6 Senator — 

7 [Laughter. ] 

8 MS. LOCKETTE: — I think the most difficult is 

9 working with the different personalities and respecting the 

10 differences that you have in your staff. 

11 We have rules and regulations for the inmates. We 

12 have the Director ' s rules ; we have Title 15 and the other 

13 Government Codes . 

14 But I feel that in the work environment that we ' re in 

15 now, we spend a lot of time with the staff, and it's important 

16 to spend the time with your staff, because that's where the 

17 rubber really meets the road and where the work is done. 

18 And for me, the most difficult is changing 

19 personalities everytime we meet with an employee during the day, 

20 because everyone is different. And to me, that's the most 

21 difficult part. 

22 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How does that express itself in 

23 your sort of daily work problems or needs? Can you give me a 

24 couple of examples of the sort of difficulties that are, 

25 perhaps, routine in terms of staff relationships and problems 

26 that arise? 

27 MS. LOCKETTE: I don't want to phrase it as 

28 difficult in that it is not manageable. 

1 One of the things that we experience in an 

2 environment within a prison system sometimes could be over- 

3 familiarity. The staff sometime lose perspective as to what 

4 their role is in relationship to the inmates . One part of you 

5 says that you should be sympathetic and understand that that 

6 person made a mistake. The other part says, we have rules and 

7 regulations that we are to enforce. And you're taking that 

8 person's life. You've taken away their monthly salary. You 

9 could possibly impact their children if they have a family. 

10 So, whenever you start impacting someone's personal 

U life, I think it's difficult, but it's manageable. And in my 

12 opinion, even if you don't do but one a year, I think that's one 

13 too many. But unfortunately, we do more than one a year. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's a new policy about to be 

15 adopted on conjugal visits. Does that affect any of your 

16 j inmates? 

17 MS. LOCKETTE: It will affect some of the inmates, 

18 Senator, because we do have inmates at NCWF that fit under the 

19 Penal Code sections that are going to be impacted. 

20 j CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many do you think you've got, 

21 or an estimate of the proportion? 

22 MS. LOCKETTE: Between 10 and 15. 

23 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That are there for a sex crime or 

24 whatever? 

25 MS. LOCKETTE: Yes. 

26 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any sense of how that's likely to 

27 work out? 

28 MS . LOCKETTE : I ' ve met with the inmates that were 

1 involved, and of course, they listen to the t.v. and they read 

2 the newspaper. 

3 So far, the women have not been overtly distressed. 

4 I'm sure they are, but they expect something to come down as a 

5 result of the news articles. 

6 I've had no indication that they're going to be 

7 disruptive, but we have met with them and made them aware of 

8 what ' s to come forward . 

9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess there is some potential 

10 for shifting the institution from female to male. I know that 

11 Senator Johnston seems to be strongly opposed to doing that, and 

12 I don't mean to involve you in what may be a policy debate 

13 that ' s inappropriate . But to the extent that you have any 

14 thoughts about that, or where these inmates would be transferred 

15 to, do they know where they'd wind up if we shift? 

16 MS. LOCKETTE: The projection and proposal from the 

17 Department now is, the women at NCWF would transfer to Valley 

18 State Prison, which is in Madera. 

19 My position is, I worked for the Department of 

20 Corrections, and I serve at the pleasure of. And I would not be 

21 opposed to any change in gender at the institution. We have 

22 well-qualified, competent staff, and we would be able to manage 

23 either gender at that institution. 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Senator Ayala. 

25 SENATOR AYALA: I was just going to ask you, how 

26 successful is your inmate labor program at the prison? 

27 MS. LOCKETTE: As of today, Senator, we have 92 
percent of our inmates working. And the 8 percent that is not 


1 working are either new arrivals at the institution, those that 
may be out to court, or some that may be on a medical lay-in. 

3 But we do have a very active working program at the institution. 

4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What percent? 

5 MS. LOCKETTE: Ninety-two percent. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are working? 


8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What kind of work do they do? 

9 MS. LOCKETTE: We have two prison industry authority 

10 programs . One is the laundry and the other is key data . 

11 We also call the classroom assignments work 

12 assignments if they work in culinary, if they're on an outside 

13 yard crew. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

15 SENATOR AYALA: What is your major industry there at 

16 the prison? 

17 MS. LOCKETTE: The major industry are the two prison 

18 industry authorities. We do laundry for about five or six 

19 outside organizations, and we also have key data, which is a 

20 major. 

21 The laundry employs in excess of 85 inmates, and we 

22 have two shifts, a day and an evening shift. 

23 Key data, we have 85 inmates employed in key data, 

24 and that's the largest outside of the six classrooms that we 

25 have . 

26 SENATOR AYALA: Are you interested in adding to those 

27 industries at the prison? If so, which industry would you like 

28 to incorporate into your program there? 

1 MS. LOCKETTE: Right now, with the cap of 800, we 

2 could not afford to add another industry with the existing 

3 population. 

4 SENATOR AYALA: You can't go by the cap, I know that. 

5 Ask the Director over here. 

6 MS. LOCKETTE: I'm sorry, Senator. Would you repeat 

7 your question? 

8 SENATOR AYALA: I just wondered what programs you'd 

9 like to add industry-wise to the prison crew there? 

10 Are these inmates going to school as well? 

11 MS. LOCKETTE: Yes, the school programs. 

12 I would not necessarily be interested in any 

13 industries, but my concern would for substance abuse counseling. 

14 We are the Northern Reception Center for parole violators, and a 

15 lot of those violators come in because they have violated for 

16 substance abuse. We do not have a viable program now to give 

17 them any counseling and training. 

18 We do have the AA program, Alcoholics Anonymous, but 

19 some of the women need more in-depth counseling on substance 

20 abuse and how to integrate themselves into their home life with 

21 their children. 

22 ! SENATOR AYALA: Do you have any counseling at all for 

23 the inmates at this time? 

24 MS. LOCKETTE: No, not at this time. 

25 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

26 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there other questions? 

27 Senator Petris . 

28 SENATOR PETRIS: I'm curious about the institution. 



1 What does a Business Manager of a prison do? Is that dealing 
with outside suppliers and stuff like that, or what? I notice 

3 you were a Business Manager II at Chino. 

4 MS. LOCKETTE: That's part of the assignment, 

5 Senator. The Business Manager is responsible for all the 

6 personnel, business services function within the institution, 

7 which does include procuring the necessary supplies, the 

8 necessary employees, and to be sure that we spend within the 

9 allotted amount of the budget. 
You also have maintenance, plant operations under 

11 your supervisions, canteen, the warehousing. Most all of the 

12 ancillary services in the institution come under the Business 

13 Manager. 

14 An institution is broken down primarily by custody 

15 and ancillary. And of course, medical. So, the Business 

16 Manager is responsible for all of the ancillary functions in the 

17 institution. 

18 SENATOR PETRIS: Does that include buying the food? 

19 MS. LOCKETTE: Yes, it does. 

20 SENATOR PETRIS: Did the food improve now at your 

21 prisons since you were a nutrition major, and so forth? What 

22 kind of feedback are you getting? 

23 MS. LOCKETTE: I can't take credit for that, Senator. 

24 we are in a shared agreement with the California Youth 

25 Authority. Our food comes prepared to us from NCYC, next door. 

26 SENATOR PETRIS: You don't get to sample it to make 

27 sure it ' s okay? 

28 MS. LOCKETTE: I do sample the food, yes, I do, 


1 occasionally. 

2 SENATOR PETRIS: I'm curious also about Laverne 

3 University. Where is that located? 

4 MS. LOCKETTE: It's in Laverne, the City of Laverne. 

5 SENATOR PETRIS: I know it's in Laverne, but I don't 

6 know where Laverne is. Is that down south? 

7 MS. LOCKETTE: Yes, it is. 

8 SENATOR PETRIS: Near where? 

9 MS. LOCKETTE: Ontario. 
SENATOR PETRIS: If you'll excuse me, as a 

11 Northerner, I'm not familiar with the territory. 

12 MS. LOCKETTE: I'm sorry. It's near Laverne — near 

13 Ontario, not very far from Chino, in that general area. 

14 SENATOR PETRIS: Is that a private school or public? 

15 MS. LOCKETTE: It's a public school. 

16 SENATOR PETRIS: Four years? 

17 MS. LOCKETTE: Yes. 

18 I SENATOR PETRIS: Is that where you got your Master's 

19 Degree? 

20 MS. LOCKETTE: Yes, it is. 

21 SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

22 SENATOR AYALA: May I respond to the Senator. 

23 That's right next to Pomona and Claremont, Laverne, 

24 San Dimas . 

25 SENATOR PETRIS: Sounds like a great place to me. 

26 SENATOR AYALA: They've got a law school there, by 
the way. It's an excellent university. 


28 MS. LOCKETTE: Thank you. 


1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Now, we have a number of letters 

2 of support, and there may well be, if I push, people that will 

3 want to come up and say some nice things about you. Though that 

4 might be fun, it's not the best way to use our time, because I 

5 think you're quickly going to be confirmed, if you don't have an 

6 objection to that result. 

7 MS. LOCKETTE: None whatsoever, Senator. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just simply to say that you have a 

9 wonderful presence, and I wish you well in your work. 

10 MS. LOCKETTE: Thank you. 

11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the pleasure of the 

12 Committee? Senator Beverly. 

13 SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion. Call the roll. 

15 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


17 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 


19 SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 


21 SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


23 SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


25 SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

26 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

27 MS. LOCKETTE: Thank you. 

28 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck. 


1 MS. LOCKETTE: Thank you. 

2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER : Mr. Rice is next. Who knows where 

3 Ironwood is? 

4 Good afternoon, sir. Did you want to start with any 


6 MR. RICE: Good afternoon, sir 

7 I'd like to tell the Committee how proud I am to be 
here today. This has been the dream of my career, to one day 

9 become a Warden of a state prison. And I feel very proud to 

represent my community and the City of Blythe, where Ironwood is 

11 located. 

I've been with the Department of Corrections 26*5 
years, starting as a correctional officer at DVI, Tracy. I 
worked in almost every position in the Department: officer, 
sergeant, lieutenant. I've been a CC I, CC II, CC III. I've 
been a special agent, associate warden, a chief deputy warden, 
interim warden, and a new prison manager, and now Warden at 

18 Ironwood State Prison. 

19 ; I worked at eight different prisons up and down the 

20 State of California, and I have, during my career, obtained a 

21 B.A. Degree from California State University Sacramento. 

22 I've worked very special assignments. I've been an 

23 employee relations officer. And since my appointment at the 

24 Ironwood facility, I have been extremely pleased to bring 
together a team from all over the State of California, where we 
have been pioneers in the treatment of people as a pilot project 




27 for the Department of Corrections, where we take treating people 


with dignity and respect as the number one issue at our 


1 facility. 

2 Ironwood has been fairly successful. We have had 

3 minimum incidents, and we have had a pretty good operation. 

4 We've been open with inmates for a year, and I think that we 

5 have come along ways in developing our relationship with each 

6 other, and we're doing a fairly good job. 

7 I'm here not only for myself, but my confirmation 

8 hearing is a reflection of my staff and team. 

9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How long have you been in this 

10 assignment now? 

11 MR. RICE: I was the new Prison Manager in September 

12 of '93, and I was appointed in April of '94 as the Warden, so 

13 about a year and a half. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is the institutional culture 

15 different at that prison than other ones you've been at? Does 

16 it feel different in any way, or are they kind of the same? 

17 MR. RICE: Well, our staff has ownership of the 

18 facility. When you walk through the institution, you ask the 

19 j staff how they feel about the facility, and they'll tell you 

20 that there's something special. And they were asked on some of 

21 the tours by different people, and they asked why do you think 

22 this place is special. They said because of the treatment of 

23 people program. 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And that's a program that began 

25 when? 

26 MR. RICE: Well, Mr. Gomez, the Director of 

27 Corrections, identified Ironwood State Prison when we activated 
as one of the pilots for the treatment of people, and it was 



1 already identified before my appointment. And as I arrived on 

2 line, me and my staff, from the very first day with consultants 

3 that was hired by the Department working with us, we were able 

4 to put that together. 

5 Now we have over 900 staff, and we're bringing them 

6 aboard each in the treatment of people program. 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What does that mean? Do you have 

8 some training sessions? What does it look like? 

9 MR. RICE: Well, the core folks that first started, 

10 we had a pretty in-depth — we don't call it training program, 

11 but a way of life program where we sit down, and we talk across 

12 the table with each other about our goals, how we're going to 

13 accomplish them, and becoming a team and a family, and 

14 identifying staff for their achievements, rewarding them through 

15 certificates, acknowledgments, and as we grew bigger, we brought 

16 in our supervisors and our managers, and we try to bring it down 

17 to our staff. But our staff got so big that we eventually had 

18 our consultants come in, and we identified lateral transfers, 

19 and stuff of that nature, and just ongoing cross communications. 

20 And it's worked real well. 

21 So, to answer your question, are we different from 

22 any other institution, I think we have the seed to be different. 

23 We have the attitude that we are a family and that we have 

24 ownership. 

25 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So maybe, for example, and not to 

26 be critical of some other place, but prior to this, you were at 

27 Susanville, you were at Vacaville, and so on. Do you feel a 

28 different spirit around Ironwood? 


1 MR. RICE: Yes. How I can address that is that at 

some of the prisons I've been at in the past, they had cultures 

3 and history that ' s gone on for a long time . And you asked why 

4 we do it that way, because it's always been done that way. 

5 At Ironwood, we were new, and we had staff coming 

6 from all over the state. And we developed — we're developing 

7 our culture. So, if you ask why we're doing it that way, it's 

8 because it's the Ironwood way, and it falls under the treatment 

9 of people as the basis for why we're doing things. 

10 But basically, we are following pretty much the 

11 traditional policies and procedures of Corrections in that term, 

12 We're real good on our security. We haven't had any escapes. 

13 We're good on resolving problems. We respond rapidly. Our 

14 staff in those arenas is just as good as any other facility in 

15 the state. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Questions from Members? Senator 

17 Ayala. 

18 SENATOR AYALA: I'd just like to ask, the prison is 

19 in Blythe, is it? 

20 MR. RICE: Yes, sir, Blythe, California. 

21 SENATOR AYALA: And you live in Marino Valley? 

22 MR. RICE: No, sir. I live in Blythe. 

23 SENATOR AYALA: You live in Blythe now, because 

24 that's a long ways to go back and forth. 

25 Don't we have another prison in Blythe? 

26 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Chuckawalla. 

27 SENATOR AYALA: That's all I have. 



1 Do you anticipate some impact from the new conjugal 

2 visit policy? What are your experiences with that? 

3 MR. RICE: I met with the inmate representatives and 

4 talked to them about this, and their issue was how do they get 

5 to address their input. And we informed them of the process, 

6 the address of the hearings. And they seemed to be pretty much 

7 satisfied with that. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many would be affected? 

9 MR. RICE: At our facility, we have approximately 80 

10 inmates who would be impacted by that. 

11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Eighty out of 3600 or so? 

12 MR. RICE: About 3600 — 3700, and those are lifers. 

13 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you seen any Three Strikers 

14 yet? 

15 MR. RICE: Yes, sir. We're starting to have them 

16 arrive, but not very many. 

17 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are they there for, can you 

18 tell? 

19 MR. RICE: No, I can't tell you off the top of my 

20 head, but my staff informed me that we have approximately five 

21 at our facility right now. 

22 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sure, also, that we've 

23 received no opposition in writing at least. 

24 I notice, looking at your affiliations, there are a 

25 number of groups that seem self-evident, but I wasn't quite sure 

26 how you fit in the Chicano Correctional Workers Association. 

27 [Laughter.] 

28 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are they very ecumenical? Is that 


1 what happens? 

2 MR. RICE: Yes, sir. 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Or are you hiding something about 

4 yourself? 

5 MR. RICE: I've been a member of the Chicano 

6 Correctional Workers Association for several years, and they 

7 have treated me as a regular member. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, anyone can join. Is that how 

9 it works? 

10 MR. RICE: Yes, sir. 

11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's not exclusive. 

12 What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

13 SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, we have a motion. 

15 Is there any objection to substituting the prior 

16 roll? 

17 Hearing none, sir, congratulations. 

18 [Thereupon the previous roll 

19 was substituted, and the 

20 confirmation was recommended 

21 with the vote of 5-0.] 

22 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck to you. 

23 MR. RICE: Thank you all very much. 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Someone might call Senator Kopp, 

25 if he wishes to return. 

26 Dr. Starr, if you want to come on up, maybe Senator 

27 Kopp will join us briefly. In the absence of that, we'll let 

28 him just insert himself whenever he joins us. 




1 That looks like an elephant tie. 

2 DR. STARR: It's the bear of California, the bear 

3 which we all serve, the California bear. I didn't think of the 

4 University of California but more generically, the State of 

5 California. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you want to begin with any 

7 kind of opening statement? 

8 DR. STARR: Senator, it's an honor to be here and to 

9 be considered by you for this great and important position. 

10 This position of State Librarian of California, the 

seventh to be appointed in this current organization, represents 
the culmination of all that I've sought to be with my life. 

13 I'd like to summon briefly to you who am I and, more 

14 j importantly, what is the State Library. 

15 The State Library was formed in 1850 by Senator 

16 Fremont, our first United States Senator, along with Senator 

17 Gwin, with a gift of 150 books to serve the newly formed state 
government. And 145 year later, that remains our primary 

19 responsibility, to make sure that the elected officials in the 

20 legislative, executive, and even the judicial branch have the 

21 information they need to carry on their duties . 

22 The State Library, over the years, has grown to be a 

23 number of other things as well. It's a reference library, some 
1.5 million volumes. During the legislative session, we can 
answer up to 3,000 questions sometimes in a busy week. It's the 

26 law library of the state, which comes out of the original 

27 foundation of Senator Fremont. It's Braille and Talking Books, 
serving the visually handicapped throughout the state. 






1 It is the California Research Bureau, which is 

administered by the State Library and by the Joint Senate and 

3 Assembly Oversight Committee which, on a very confidential 

4 basis, provides you elected officials and other appointed 

5 officials as well the long-range policy research they need. 

6 The State Library is also a financial agency, 
administering some $22 million of state and federal aid, and the 

8 all-important Proposition 85 bond issue. 

9 And in a very important way, the State Library 
represents the sovereignty of the people of California, their 
cultural continuity since 1850, and as such, the job of State 

12 Librarian has a certain spokesperson or ceremonial role, to be 

13 an advocate for the 8,000 libraries in the state, the 2,000 

14 public libraries especially. 

15 Who am I? I was born in San Francisco in 1940, and 

16 all my life has, as you'll see, come to this moment. My 

17 education is such, my parents had a difficult time in raising 

18 us. My brother and I went to an orphanage, the Albertinium in 

19 Ukiah, from 1946 to '50. And as a boy in somewhat emotionally 

20 disturbed circumstances because of the breakup of my family, 

21 readership meant so much to me, to read. To this day, I can 

22 remember Sister Mauritzia reading to a dormitory room of 40 boys 

23 each evening, and in that reading — and I still visit Sister 
Mauritzia; she's in her 90s now, living in Mission San Jose — 
in that reading, in that habit of reading, I built my autonomy 
and my identity. 


27 I W ent to school at St. Boniface School in San 


Francisco, St. Ignatius High School, St. Joseph's, minor 


1 Seminary in Mountain View, California. I graduated from the 
University of San Francisco in 1962. I spent two years as an 

3 Army officer in a tank battalion in Germany. I then went on to 

4 Harvard University on scholarship, where I took my M.A. and 

5 Ph.D. degree, and I also am very proud of my Master of Library 

6 Science Degree from the University of California at Berkeley. 

7 My whole life has been tied up with scholarship, with 

8 writing, with librarianship, journalism, and public service. 

9 And that is what makes this job so compelling to me, and which 

10 has made the past seven months, although the busiest time I've 

11 ever spent in my life, also the most exhilarating: the 

12 opportunity to pay back to the State of California all that has 

13 been given to me through working on behalf of better library 

14 service for both the State of California and all the other 

15 library jurisdictions. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Doctor. 

17 Let me interrupt or now segue in Dr. Kopp. 

18 SENATOR KOPP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

19 I'm bringing coals to Newcastle. 

20 I want to record, however, my recommendation to the 

21 Committee that it confirm or recommend the confirmation of Dr. 

22 Starr . 

23 I've known Dr. Starr since 1974. I am here to 

24 memorialize my attestation of his character, his integrity, his 

25 consummate motivation, and his matchless competency in the field 

26 of library science. 

27 I believe that Dr. Starr represents the finest in 

28 gubernatorial appointments, and I further believe that history 


1 will demonstrate that no one has surpassed him if given an 

2 opportunity as a result of Senate confirmation. 

3 And I thank you . 

4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator. 

5 DR. STARR: Thank you, Senator Kopp. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

7 SENATOR PETRIS: May I second Senator Kopp ' s motion? 

8 I've had the good fortune to know him for years . I'd 

9 like to ask a couple of questions . It's not on your 

10 responsibilities. 

11 Recently, the University at Berkeley abandoned the 

12 undergraduate courses in library science and teach only the 

13 graduate level; is that correct? Is that the present status? 

14 DR. STARR: Correct, Senator. They've kept it — 

15 they're going to keep it as a graduate program, but they're 

16 shifting it over from "roll-up-your-sleeves" librarianship and 

17 service of people and making it more purely information science. 

18 And my opinion is that librarianship involves the 

19 most abstruse elements of information science and technology, 

20 but also involves getting books to people in the inner city, 

21 getting to books to people in the rural parts of our state, 

22 building new libraries in areas that don't have libraries. 

23 And I think that the University of California at 

24 Berkeley, and I say this respectfully as a graduate of the 

25 program, is making a big mistake in detaching librarianship from 

26 public service. I think librarianship is a science; it's the 

27 science of bibliography, of information, but more importantly, 

28 it's also a branch of education and a branch of public service. 



1 That leaves only San Jose State University producing 

2 librarians oriented towards practical work in the field, because 

3 the University of California at Los Angeles has made a similar 

4 decision regarding its program. 

5 As you may or may not know, Senator, I remain a 

6 contributing editor to the Los Angeles Times . and I've written 
1 rather outspokenly on this issue to try and remind the 

8 universities that if they walk away from the library needs of 32 

9 million people of the state, they're going to have a tough time 
when they come back to the same people, asking for budget 

11 backing for the expansion of their other university programs. 

12 Some programs have a certain humility to them, and 

13 librarianship has that. Librarianship is a mode of service. 

14 Librarians don't get Nobel Prizes. Librarians rarely get rich, 

15 but that doesn't mean that the university should walk away from 

16 the training of librarians for the people of this state. 

17 SENATOR PETRIS: I was curious, because I feel the 

18 same way, and I wrote the letter to the University complaining 

19 about that decision. 

20 They did the same years before in the Department of 

21 Journalism. There's no undergraduate journalism department any 

22 more, but they have a graduate department. I don't understand 

23 how they can do that. That was my major, so I've been doubly 

24 afflicted by those two decisions. 

25 Has this had much of an impact in the number of 

26 librarians? 

27 DR. STARR: It's had an impact because the University 

28 of California at Berkeley hasn't admitted students now for the 






























second year. There's no students there. 

On the other hand, Senator, San Jose State University- 
has responded to this in a very dramatic way, establishing an 
affiliate program at Cal. State Fullerton. It's my hope also 
that we can have an affiliate program here at California State 
University at Sacramento to service the educational needs of 
those from the north, from Sacramento and the north area, who 
wish to go to library school. 

So, I think in general, library education is moving 
forward to where it began. Melville Dewey began the education 
of librarians in the library itself, in the State Library at New 
York, and then later formed the library school there which later 
became Columbia. 

And I think down the pike, with the leadership of San 
Jose State and the encouragement of San Jose State, we'll be 
able to survive in a newly reconfigured mode. 

I asked the question, though, Senator, in terms of 
the University of California walking away from this field, where 
are the great scholar librarians going to come from to manage 
these marvelous university collections which the people of 
California are buying for the University of California if they 
are not part and parcel of the training of the future university 
librarians, as well as public librarians, of the state? 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's the answer? 

DR. STARR: I think that answer is that the elected 
officials — and there I, as an appointed official, back off — 
the elected officials have to encourage the University of 
California to keep in mind at all times that it is the people of 






























California who pay its bills. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Has that ever been revisited? Was 
that decision made and then they walked away from it? 

DR. STARR: They walked away from it. I think they 
were shocked, Senator, at the outrage that responded in the 
library world. 

Now, for instance, in my own school, the University 
of California at Berkeley, where I took my Library Degree in 
1974, we alumni were rather shocked by it because we produced 
every kind of librarian. We produced prison librarians, public 
librarians, and we produced great rare book librarians. We 
don't see any difficulty in having the continuity of 
librarianship kept alive in the University. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's jeopardizing it right now, I 

DR. STARR: I think we're trying to — I think that 
the decision made by the University of California is creating a 
two-tiered system of librarians: those that come from U.C., 
which will be called information science; and then the San Jose 
State librarians. And I don't think you can have a cap or 
two-tiered system in the preparation of librarians for the 
entire state. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Where do the local librarians come 
fit in there? 

DR. STARR: Well, the local libraries, I think — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are they a third tier? 

DR. STARR: No, the local libraries, I think, will 
probably do most of their recruiting from the San Jose State 


1 graduates . 

2 I also think, Senator, that we have to have very 

3 vigorous programs of internships, especially for minority people 

4 who want to become librarians. You can come up to a college 

5 degree, work at a library, be a library tech., and then to make 

6 that jump to the Master of Library Science you've got to have 
flexible work hours, but you also have to have a faculty, a 

8 facility, within some reasonable distance to go to. And that's 

9 why I'm so heartened by the San Jose State program at Fullerton 
10 and want to have one here in Sacramento as well. 

n SENATOR PETRIS: Last week, I visited my old high 

12 school in Oakland, McClymonds High School. 

13 DR. STARR: Great basketball power when I was in high 

14 school. 

15 SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, well, it was a great library 

16 power when I was there. 

17 [Laughter. ] 

18 SENATOR PETRIS: But times change, and I'm a lot 

19 older. 

20 But I remember very well the librarian we had there. 

21 She was very popular with the students and extremely helpful . 

22 But now, I am sad to note that we in California have 

23 the smallest number of librarians in our high schools than any 

24 state in the Union. It's another area where we're number 50. 

25 DR. STARR: That's right, Senator, we're fifty. And 
of course, as you remember your own librarian from McClymonds, I 


27 remember mine from St. Ignatius, and I'm sure others. 


Fortunately, we also have a very reinvigorated school 




1 — California School Librarians Association. And we met 

recently with that group, John McGinniss, myself, and others, 
Barbara Jeff us, with Superintendent of Public Instruction 

4 Delaine Eastin. And we're going to be addressing that 

5 challenge. 

6 I don ' t think that anyone is comfortable with the 
absolute deterioration of school libraries in this state. It 
sort of crept up on us over the last 15-20 years. We weren't 

9 paying attention to it . 

The State Library, although this is not my 
jurisdiction, it's the jurisdiction of the Superintendent, the 
State Library is looked upon to help this . And Superintendent 

13 Delaine Eastin and I are already meeting, and we're going to be 

14 working on behalf of this. 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What can you do? 

16 DR. STARR: Senator, it's not for me to do this as an 

17 elected official, but hopefully aspiring elected official — 

18 aspiring appointed official. This belongs to the elected 

19 officials. But I think the solution is political. 

20 I think that probably the school librarians and 

21 library people will probably look for some kind of referendum, 

22 put something on the ballot for school libraries. 

23 But I feel very trepidatious speaking about this, 

24 because I tried, in the last seven or eight months, to stay away 
from anything that pertains to the political process in that 


27 SENATOR PETRIS: Well, we need some guidance, 


nevertheless, so we won't hold it against you 




1 DR. STARR: I have been conferring, and I also, for 

instance, Senator Marks — there's been bills for the libraries, 

3 for library construction in both the Assembly and the State 

4 Senate. And I have requested Governor Wilson's permission to 

5 speak openly and lobby openly on behalf of these two bills. And 

6 I have my request in now, and I'm sure the Governor will honor 

7 that request. 

8 SENATOR PETRIS: I notice you've been doing a lot of 

9 visiting to the local libraries around the state. They're also 
interested in helping the high school libraries, I imagine. 
Might be some kind of a concerted effort from the whole library 

12 community. 

13 DR. STARR: Absolutely. I think that these bills, 

14 the bills that are being considered by the Senate and the 

15 Assembly, have a broader and more encompassing direction. 

16 I have been going up and down the state, Senator. I 

17 tried to be in every county as best I can, looking forward to 

18 this confirmation hearing, and I've tried to identify with the 

19 different problems in the north state, where people have to come 
in 30, 40, 50 miles to go to the library, or to the inner city 

21 of South Central Los Angeles with their differing needs. 

22 I think the important thing to remember in this , and 

23 I've learned in my travels, is that we can't establish a 
two-tiered society of information-rich and information-poor. 
When we get the applications for LSCA grants, and I review them 
meticulously myself, I'm rather concerned that the same 
districts seem to have the best applications each time.. It's 
the Matthew 13 effect: "To him who hath much, much shall be 







1 given. To him that hath little, that little which he has shall 

2 be taken from him. " 

3 SENATOR PETRIS: Is that one of the books in — 

4 DR. STARR: Matthew 13, Gospel of Matthew. That book 

5 is in our library. 

6 And I have a program now that we ' re starting at the 
State Library to give workshops to some of the disadvantaged 

8 districts on how to present applications, on how to envision 

9 their future. Especially, this is important for the north and 
it's important for parts of Southern California. 

I visited a library in the barrio of Riverside, and I 
have never seen simultaneously such deprived circumstances nor 
13 such seraphically intelligent and committed librarians as I 
found in that place. So, in many cases, the poorest of 

15 resources have the richest of human resources . 

16 And I think it's our job in the State of California 

17 to make sure that this is equalized as much as possible up and 

18 down the state. 

19 SENATOR PETRIS: The question has slipped by. I'll 

20 go to another one and then come back. 

21 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: "Seraphically" probably did it. 

22 SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. If I knew how to spell it, I'd 

23 write it down. 

24 DR. STARR: The seraphim were — 


DR. STARR: It's the choir of angels, Senator, that 

obtained to intelligence the most, according to Greek theology. 
SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, well, I missed that chapter. 




1 [Laughter. ] 

2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He's still into the wars and 

3 stuff. 

4 [Laughter.] 

5 SENATOR PETRIS: I remember it now. 

6 Have you had a chance in the sort time you've been 
there to check the contributions that are being made through the 

8 income tax check-off to helping — 

9 DR. STARR: Yes, we have. Barbara Jeff us, who is our 

10 representative over at the Office of Public Instruction, is 

11 monitoring that. And they had something like 10,000 

12 applications, and I forget exactly how many they could fulfill; 

13 j it ' s a very small number. But this has been a very successful 

14 program. It's moving towards a million dollars, if I remember 

15 correctly the sum that was given. 

16 SENATOR PETRIS: Is it that high? 

17 DR. STARR: Yes, if I remember. It's very 

18 successful, and I have great hopes for it to grow. 

19 SENATOR PETRIS: I was reminded of it last night, 

20 Mr. Chairman, working on my current income taxes, and I checked 

21 off "Library. " 

22 I hope the public is listening. I urge you to do the 

23 same, if we're on t.v. 

24 Bookmobiles, do we still have any left, or have those 

25 been wiped out? 

26 DR. STARR: Not the California State Library. We 

27 used to have them — 

28 SENATOR PETRIS: No, I mean local. 






























DR. STARR: Yes, oh certainly. We have very 
successful programs, especially in our rural areas. Bookmobiles 
are very important . 

The state used to support bookmobiles many years ago. 
I was reading lately William Eaverson's letters to Lawrence 
Clark Powell from Fresno in the late 1930s, when he was a manual 
laborer trying to write poetry, and he became a great California 
poet, and how, thanks to the bookmobile, thanks to the county 
library system, he could get any of the books he needed. 

We have bookmobiles as a mode of distribution, and of 
course, we have the forthcoming new technology that will enable 
us — allow us in the future to operate our entire library 
system, not as an administrative whole, because it'll still be 
under local jurisdictions, but certainly we can operate our 
collections as a whole so that no one area of California will be 
deprived from information resources . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Did you say that the state system 
also used to have bookmobiles? 

DR. STARR: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do we still have those? 

DR. STARR: No, sir, we don't. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that because of financial — 

DR. STARR: We used to have a much closer 
relationship to the county libraries, Senator, in the 
ninteen-teens and twenties, but now that the county libraries 
are more independent, they tend to operate those programs. 

At one point, California was looking to having a 
unified system, with the California State Library really as the 




1 sort of Mother of All Libraries for the state. But then, with 

2 the rise of our population from 9 million in '39, to 22 million 
in '62, to 32-plus million today, our local jurisdictions have 

4 come and taken those over, and the State Library has become more 

5 focused on work for government, and the work as a financial 

6 agency for library development throughout the state. 

7 SENATOR PETRIS: As an author yourself, you've 

8 written distinguished books on the history of California, 

9 particularly the literary history — 
DR. STARR: Thank you. 
SENATOR PETRIS: — who, in your mind — and you 

12 don't need to answer this, because you're on the hot seat, I 
guess — but whom would you regard as the top five current 

14 writers coming up in California? 

15 DR. STARR: I'm more comfortable as an appointed 
official talking about those who have gone before us. 

17 But I'd say we have many, many fine writers. I James 

Houston, who writes out of Santa Cruz, is a very fine writer. 
Amy Tan is a very fine writer. Maya Angelou. There's just an 

20 embarrassment of riches in this state, the writers. 

: It's always been a very powerful literary state, with 

: Gertrude Atherton, Mary Austin, Ina Coolbrith who was librarian 
of Oakland, a great poet, Jack London, Frank Norris . We've 
always had an abundance of writers and that tradition continues . 

And one of the things I'm doing, Senator, is to try 
and get the State Library to get the papers of writers . For 
instance, we've succeeded. Richard Rodriguez, the very 
distinguished Mexican-American, Mexican-Californian, a native of 







1 Sacramento, has designated the State Library for his papers. 
Paul Erdman, The Billion Dollar Sure Thing , the popular 

3 novelist, has designated the State Library. 

4 And I think down the pike that that program, I'm 

5 going to put a lot of energy behind that, not to the exclusion 

6 of my other duties, but to make sure that the State Library has 
that quality of representing the literary and historical 

8 tradition of the state, as well as operating as a reference 

9 point for government, and as a leading agent for public 
10 libraries. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is there any state, especially 
considering our youth, we're not as old as the eastern states, 
that has a better concentration over the years, especially in 

14 its early years, of fine writers? 

15 DR. STARR: Well, I think you've hit an important 

16 point, Senator. 

IV In my opinion, when I first finished my Ph.D. orals 

18 at Harvard and was looking for a dissertation topic, I went to 

19 the fourth floor of Widener Library. And Horace Davis, Harvard 

20 Class of 1844, Law School Class of 1848, had left money to 

21 Harvard upon his death for the buying of books on California. 

22 And so when I walked and browsed the stacks on the fourth floor 

23 of Widener and saw that the entire wing is devoted to the books 

24 of California, and I began to look at our writers in the 19th 

25 and 20th Century, I began to look at our philosophers, Josiah 

26 Royce, our economists, Henry George, I began to look at our 
artistic personalities, Isadora Duncan, another citizen of 
Oakland, and I had an insight there that California was rich in 



1 its interior intellectual, moral, and imaginative culture. 

2 There was more of constituent commonwealth of 

3 America, along with New England, the Middle Atlantic States, the 

4 South, the Midwest, and that California was ranked with those, 

5 not just in its riches, material riches, but in its internal 

6 riches as well. And I think history shows that. 

7 I think the past is only a prologue to the future. I 

8 think we're on the verge of a Golden Age of American 

9 civilization in California. Despite all the problems which you 
elected officials have to grapple with day by day, there is that 
finer California emerging. We all see it, and we're going to 
make it happen, each of us in our own way; I, through library 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's great. Thank you very much. 



15 Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have a book project going? 

17 DR. STARR: I have two books. I finished three 
volumes before I took this job, 2700 pages, three volumes 

19 called — it ' s my Americans and the California Dream series 

20 The fourth volume, which is now in press, is called 

21 Endangered Dreams: California in the Great Depression . And then 

22 The Dream Endures: California into World War II , that's done. 

23 And then War and Return: California to 1950 . 

24 I«m now doing two books in my time — my schedule's 

25 changed now with working 40-50 hour week, but I live nearby. 
I'm under contract with Alfred A. Knopf to do a book called The 


27 Coast: California since 1950 , and also I'm under contract with 


Alfred Knopf to do a book called Catholic in America , which is 


1 going to be a social cultural history of Catholic immigration. 

2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You served how many years in San 

3 Francisco? 

4 DR. STARR: Towards four, and I left when I received 

5 a Guggenheim Fellowship to finish the second volume in my 

6 series . 

7 Mayor Mosconi very kindly invited me to stay on after 

8 he became Mayor, but when I got this Guggenheim, I had to really 

9 take that. 

10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there any particular singular 

11 accomplishment that you would point to during that phase of your 

12 career that — 

13 DR. STARR: It was a tough time, Senator, because the 

14 early '70s were very difficult. I came into a very polarized 

15 union situation, but we got 133 SEATA employees. We opened the 

16 library for the first time on Sunday in 25 years, and that's a 

17 very important thing, is to get libraries open when working 

18 people can use them. We got the San Francisco History Room 

19 established. 

20 I got a number of minority people working in the 

21 library to make the leap into the professional ranks by setting 

22 up flex time for them. I promoted the public relations side of 

23 the library, tried to raise the consciousness of the library in 

24 the city, and I think in some of those areas, I was successful. 

25 I noticed, coming to the State Library now, a number 

26 of years later, that the union situation, the staff associations 

27 situation and management, is very different. Not that there 
aren't points of disagreement that come, but we don't have the 






1 kind of dialectical encounters that I achieved there. 

2 I did all that I could also to keep the branch 

3 systems going. When they wanted to close the branch out in the 

4 Ocean Avenue area because it was small, I said that's okay if 

5 it's small. These people are poor in this area. That library 

6 has to stay open. 

7 I began the purchase of Asian language materials in 

8 the Chinatown branch, and now, of course, the purchasing of 

9 Asian materials is universal throughout the state. 

I went with Dr. James Holliday, the Executive 

Director of the California Historical Society, and we brought 
back $276,000 from the National Endowment for the Humanities for 
the Bicentennial programs, the American Issues Forum in San 

14 Francisco. 

15 And I ceaselessly tried to raise the consciousness of 
the library, just as I'm going to, if confirmed by this body, 

17 try to do my best to alert the people of California that they 

18 have something akin to the Library of Congress in their 

19 possession, this great library founded in 1850, including the 
Sutro Library in San Francisco. And that we, as Calif ornians, 

21 know ourselves through our cultural institutions, and at the 

22 j forefront of that is our State Library. 

23 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's an impressive list in the 
prior years . 

Now, looking ahead, if you've got some years for some 
serious running room here, what would you hope would be the 

27 three or four principal accomplishments? 

28 DR. STARR: There would be internal and external, 






1 sir. The internal ones, I want to fine-tune the Library. We 

2 need to get more of our electronics and automation more up to 

3 date . 

4 It's ironic, and I'm not complaining to you — 

5 elected officials don't get a satisfaction cutting budgets, I 

6 know — but we're a little bit behind on our electronic 

7 development side in terms of our circulation system, and I look 

8 forward to working with that. 

9 I want to fine-tune some of the processes in the 
Library, because we had a roughly 40 percent cut in staff, and 

11 we have to re-educate ourselves. The Golden Age will not come 
- back, where suddenly you're going to start throwing all kinds of 

13 people at us . And we have to re-educate ourselves to do more 

14 with less . 

When I first came to the Library, there were signs up 

saying, "Due to budget cuts, no books can be paged after 4:30." 

17 Well, I said to the staff, let's not hit the voters 

18 or elected officials over the head. The voters give us the most 

19 money they can; the elected officials have many compromises. 

20 It's a miracle that the Library's open 'til 4:30. 

21 I didn't put a sign up there saying, "It's a miracle 

22 the Library's open 'til 4:30," but I did try and bring us into 

23 this new era where we deal with the fiscal realities that will 

24 be part and parcel of my time. 

25 I also want to, and I touched on this, to upgrade the 

26 California collection and get that side in terms of manuscripts. 
In terms of our published resources, we are equal to the 



28 Bancroft. In terms of our manuscripts and archival resources, 


1 we're not, so we're going to play catch-up on that, and that's a 

2 lot of fun. 

3 I'm also trying to work with my staff to give them a 

4 sense of self-esteem, the importance of working for the state. 

5 Many of them have it. Others are still a little shell-shocked 

6 from the budget cuts, and I'm working with them. And I'm trying 

7 to reward talent in that regard. 

8 And externally, I want to see the Sutro Library, 

9 which is one of our great treasures, more permanently 
established. It's a miracle that we got the ex-Senate and 
Assembly Chambers down there, but in the long run, Mr. William 
Lohenberg of San Francisco is going to help me, and we're going 
to get a more permanent place for that . I don ' t know exactly 
where; it could be right where we are there. I have no agenda 

15 there. I want to do that. 

16 And I also want to ensure this equity of service up 
and down the state. I want the State Library to be the library 

18 of last resort for all of us, that no Calif ornian is 

19 disemancipated, if there's such a word, from library service 

20 because the State Library is there and cares about them. And I 
want to foster that rise of a cooperative Library of California 
sensibility, both in terms of technology, but also in terms of 
the programs that we have: the outreach programs for minority 
people; the reading programs that we have for the prison system; 
our literacy program which this Senate body has been so generous 
to over the years . 



27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How is that working? 


DR. STARR: It's working magnificently, sir. You 



1 would have tears in your eyes if you heard the testimony that I 

2 did a week ago when I went down to San Bernardino for the 

3 graduation of the people in that program, and heard the 

4 testimonies of how a sense of shame about a literacy problem was 

5 overcome, and how they went there, and how they now gave talks 

6 which they had written out themselves . And because they broke 

7 through that barrier of literacy, they're going to be productive 

8 citizens. They won't have to be inhabitants or inmates of 

9 institutions, or not be able to support themselves. 

The State Senate of California has been very generous 

11 to the literacy program, and we're very proud of the results 

12 we're showing in it. 

13 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

14 SENATOR PETRIS: I've been to some of those 

15 graduations, too, and it's really very moving to see someone get 

16 up who's 50 years old, read a passage from a book or read his 

17 own composition, as you said. 

18 Since we're talking about budgets and cuts, I wanted 

19 to leave this thought with you, which I'm sure is very familiar 

20 to you. I don't know who wrote it. I saw it in the Berkeley 

21 Public Library, and I'd like to see it on the outside of every 

22 library in the state. You don't need it inside, because people 

23 who are in there understand it and appreciate it. 

24 It says: "Libraries will get you through times of no 

25 j money better than money will get you through times of no 

26 libraries . " 

27 If people see that from the outside, then they might 
be more tempted to go in and use it and support it. 



1 DR . STARR : That ' s true . 

2 One of the things I'm emphasizing at the statewide 

3 learning center here is that we don't threaten our elected 

4 officials, whether on the state level or the local level, and 

5 say, "Give us more money or we're going to close." 

6 It ' s that we take the money given to us , which 

7 represents the stewardship of our people, and we do the most 

8 with it. And then we say to the people of California and to the 

9 elected officials, "Look at what we've done with $5. And if you 

10 give us $5.15, we're going to be able to increase on the margin 

11 geometrically and do A, B, C, D. " 

12 And I think that sensibility is coming, where we stop 

13 blaming, stop whining, and go forward together as Californians 

14 with the financial resources that we realistically have, given 

15 all the demands that you Senators have to meet, day by day, for 

16 this entire state. 

17 That doesn't mean that we don't fight for our budget, 

18 but we fight out of strength and service, not out of threats of 

19 closures. 

20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

21 SENATOR AYALA: I just wanted to say that I visited 

22 with the good Doctor at great length last week, and I was very 

23 ! impressed with him. 

24 I think we're very fortunate to have somebody of his 

25 caliber as our State Librarian. In fact, I went away thinking 

26 he was over-qualified for the job. 

27 You should be running for the Superintendent of 

28 instruction, and I think that'd be a better position for you. 


1 DR. STARR: Senator, no one's over-qualified for 

being a librarian. It can be argued that it's the oldest 

3 profession that we have. 

4 [Laughter. ] 

5 DR. STARR: Certainly there were librarians in the 

6 ancient temples, the ancient world, and it's my calling. 

But any qualifications I have is because people 

8 raised their hand out to me. I was raised in poverty and 

9 circumstances in the Protreroville Housing Project. My mother 

10 was on relief, Aid to Dependent Children in 1950, '51, '52, '53. 

11 So, whatever qualifications I have is because people reached out 

12 to me and said, "Kevin, here's a scholarship." "Kevin, go to 

13 school." "Kevin, here's a book. Let's read it and let's talk." 

14 And that's what I want to do as Librarian, is to hand 

15 that on to others, what was handed on to me. 

16 SENATOR AYALA: May I move this good Democrat out? 


18 We have a motion. 

19 Your enthusiasm is infectious and impressive. Thank 

20 you for a thoughtful presentation. 

21 Oldest profession. 

22 [Laughter. ] 

23 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess that's, God named 

24 everything, and that was the Dewey Decimal System, or something, 

25 classifications. 

26 DR. STARR: Well, I mean to suggest, Senator, is that 
really, if we go back to the most ancient of ancient cities, we 
have something resembling a library and archive there. 



1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, I understand. 

2 Thank you for informing us in interesting ways while 

3 we consider this matter. 

4 Senator Ayala moves. Call the roll, if you will. 

5 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


7 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 


9 SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 


11 SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


13 SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


15 SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We're fortunate to have your 

17 stewardship. 

18 DR. STARR: Thank you, Senators, and I will never 

19 lose sight in the time, however long I serve, of the fact that 

20 the primary mission of this Library is to serve state 

21 government. All the other things we do, we have to take care of 

22 the store and do that first. 

23 I keep reminding staff, and staff is very much 

24 committed to this ideal : your information needs . You ' re our 

25 | first client. 

26 Thank you. 

27 [Thereupon this portion of the 

28 Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately 
2:57 P.M.I 




3 I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 

4 State of California, do hereby certify: 

5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that 

6 the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 

8 thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 


11 interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 

13 this cz>Q day of March, 1995. 




17 — ^VELYN<J. MtfZAK 

Shorthand Reporter 






Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.25 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 274-R when ordering. 







ROOM 3191 


y . MONDAY, MARCH 27, 1995 


APR 7 1995 



10:51 A.M. 



ROOM 3191 

MONDAY, MARCH 27, 1995 
10:51 A.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 











11 GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

12 PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

13 RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

14 NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


16 WILLIAM J. HUME, Member 
State Board of Education 





Committee Action 1 

Termination of Proceedings 1 

Certificate of Reporter 2 



2 Page 

3 Proceedings 1 

4 Governor ' s Appointees t 

5 WILLIAM J. HUME, Member 
State Board of Education 1 


Statement by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: Division 

7 of Opinion on Appointment 1 

8 Motion to Send Confirmation to Floor 
without Recommendation 1 



1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 — 00O00 — 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The next item is Mr. Hume's 

4 appointment as a Member of the State Board of Education. 

5 There is a division of opinion on the Rules 

6 Committee. So, since Thursday is the drop-dead date for this 

7 appointment — that is, the year will have run — it seems 

8 appropriate to move it to the Floor without a recommendation so 

9 that then the Floor can engage in an active debate, and each 

10 Member of Rules could cast whatever vote they would deem 

11 appropriate when it's on the Floor. 

12 Senator Lewis, can you help me with that motion? 

13 SENATOR LEWIS: I'll be glad to make the motion. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. So, it ' s a motion to 

15 send the matter to the Floor for their consideration without a 

16 recommendation from Rules . 

17 May we record the three of us present for that 

18 purpose? Okay, that'll be the order. 

19 [Thereupon the record reflected 

20 a vote of 3-0 to send the 

21 confirmation to the Floor without 

22 recommendation.] 

23 [Thereupon this portion of the 

24 Senate Rules Committee hearing 

25 was terminated at approximately 

26 10:54 A.M. ] 

27 — ooOoo — 



3 I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 

4 State of California, do hereby certify: 

5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that 

6 the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 

7 was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 

8 thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 

10 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 

11 interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 

13 this QS / day of March, 1995. 





Shorthand Reporter 






Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $2.50 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 275-R when ordering. 






ROOM 113 


(MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1995 
1:50 PM. 


JUN 1 1995 

SAW FPf wr ' J 




ROOM 113 

MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1995 
1:50 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 



California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 

State Board of Education 




3 Proceedings 1 

4 Governor ' s Appointees t 

California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 1 


Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Tenure on Board 1 

Number of ALJs and Workload 2 

Management 2 

Rotation of Board Panels 3 

Bulk of Work in Unemployment Appeals 3 

Dispute Patterns 4 

Assessment of Evidence by ALJs 4 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Backlog 5 

Reasons for Backlogs 5 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Any Inherent Unfairnesses in Law 6 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Gustavus Adolphus 6 

Motion to Confirm 7 

Committee Action 7 


25 State Board of Education 7 

26 Background and Experience 8 



INDEX ( Continued^ 

2 Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

3 Tenure of Position 9 

4 Plans for Next Year 9 

5 Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

6 Location of High School 9 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

State's Policy on Educating Children of 

Undocumented Immigrant Parents 10 


Educating Citizens with Illegal Parents 11 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Most Difficult Issue While on Board 11 

Controversies during Tenure on Local Board .... 12 

Motion to Confirm 13 

Committee Action 13 

Termination of Proceedings 13 

Certificate of Reporter 14 

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 — ooOoo — 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our first appointee to speak with 

4 is Mr. Stockdale, who's been appointed by the Governor to the 

5 Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. 

6 MR. STOCKDALE: Thank you, sir. 

7 If you'll come on up. Sometimes, Jim, people want to 

8 begin with a little opening statement about their background. 

9 It's not necessary, but if you would wish to, we'd entertain 

10 that initially. 

11 MR. STOCKDALE: Thank you, sir. 

12 I was born and raised in South Dakota. Like a lot of 

13 smart people, I migrated from the Midwest to California in the 

14 '70s. I served as Deputy Undersecretary for Government Affairs 

15 in the early '80s. Returned to California to serve as Acting 

16 Undersecretary, and then acting Secretary of the Health and 

17 Welfare Agency, and then was appointed to the Unemployment 

18 Insurance Appeals Board. 

19 I'm here for my confirmation on my reappointment. 

20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Tell us about the job. How long 

21 1 have you been there now? 

22 ! MR. STOCKDALE: This is my hearing for my third term, 

23 { so I've been there eight years. 

24 The job basically entails two things. One is, we are 

25 the end of the administrative due process part on unemployment 

26 insurance appeals claims. After our Board's decisions, an 

27 appeal would go to Superior Court. So, we act as the, if you 

28 will, the last train stop on the administrative due process. 

1 We also, as a seven-member Board, manage the field 

2 operation, which consists of the different administrative law 

3 judges who hear the initial appeals as they come from EDD. 

4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many of them are there? 

5 MR. STOCKDALE: How many judges are there? 


7 MR. STOCKDALE: We have 217 AL Js , of which 193 are 

8 permanent . 

9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Those are all full-time? 


11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that much workload before the 

12 ALJs? 

13 MR. STOCKDALE: At the moment we're in a process of 

14 doing some downsizing. As you will recall during the 

15 recessionary years, we added some ALJs. Now that the cycle is 

16 going down, we're in the process of doing some downsizing. 

17 At the moment, there is work for all of those ALJs. 

18 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How do you manage them? Just by 

19 your appointment of hiring of an executive officer? 

20 MR. STOCKDALE: We do not have an executive officer, 

21 sir. The Chairman of the Board acts, if you will, as the 

22 executive officer, with the advice and consent of the other 

23 Board members . 


25 MR. STOCKDALE: Our senior staff consists of a 

26 General Counsel, a staff person that handles all of the field 

27 judges, and a staff person that handles what we call the Board 

28 authors, which are those who review the appeals coming from the 

1 field before they come to the members of the Board. 

2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there many of those? 

3 MR. STOCKDALE: Don't hold me precisely to this 

4 figure, 20. 

5 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That come — 

6 MR. STOCKDALE: That are at the Board, who review the 

7 decisions coming from the field prior to them being submitted to 

8 panels of Board members to make the ultimate decision. 


10 And you rotate the Board panels? Is that how that 

11 works? 

12 MR. STOCKDALE: It's done by random drawing. There 

13 are two-member panels, and our computer determines which of the 

14 seven members are on two-member panels . The computer balances 

15 it out, so we try to have an equivalent workload. 

16 We also have seven-member panel decisions which we 

17 can issue, and of course, if you look at it from a legal 

18 standpoint of view, the highest decision we can make are 

19 precedent decisions, which do bind legally. 

20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The overwhelming bulk of the work 

21 seems to be in the unemployment appeals rather than disability 

22 or tax? 

23 MR. STOCKDALE: That is correct. The breakdown is: 

24 81 percent are U.I., or unemployment; with 10 percent being 

25 disability; the other 9 percent are tax cases. 

26 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there any particular 

27 contentiousness or lack of clarity in the code? What do you 
think accounts for the disproportionate number of U.I. 


1 arguments? 

2 MR. STOCKDALE: I think it's the number of people who 

3 fall into that category. I don't think there's any problem 

4 within the code. I think it's just that's the way it shakes 

5 out, if you will. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That the pool is that much bigger? 

7 MR. STOCKDALE: Yeah. More people are going to be 

8 appealing a layoff, if you will, than a disability just because 

9 there are just that many more who are subject to that particular 

10 problem. 

11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you notice any pattern of the 

12 type of U.I. disputes that you see most frequently? 

13 MR. STOCKDALE: No, I think they stay fairly 

14 consistently. By and large, the issue in the overwhelming 

15 majority is whether or not misconduct has taken place. If it's 

16 a matter of misconduct — if it's not a matter of misconduct, 

17 there is an entitlement to unemployment insurance. If there is, 

18 there is not, and that's almost — 

19 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's the argument almost all the 

20 time? 

21 MR. STOCKDALE: That's the argument. 

22 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How does the judge assess the 

23 evidence on misconduct? Is it just affidavits, and people's 

24 testimony on both sides? 

25 MR. STOCKDALE: Both, both. There are times when the 

26 hearings are ex parte. I suppose there are as many different 

27 types of situations before an administrative law judge as there 

28 would be before any other type of judge. 

1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there questions from Members? 

2 Senator Ayala. 

3 SENATOR AYALA: I would like to ask, how large of a 

4 backlog do you have currently? 

5 MR. STOCKDALE: Currently we're pretty current, sir. 


7 MR. STOCKDALE: And that's because we're going 

8 through one of those periods when we're — we are downsizing 

9 just because of the workload. We're reasonably current. 

10 SENATOR AYALA: And your job would be to hear appeals 

11 of the person who's been denied any benefits; is that correct? 

12 MR. STOCKDALE: They could be employee appeals or 

13 employer appeals . 

14 SENATOR AYALA: And what creates a backlog, to need 

15 for you to have additional help? What causes that to become a 

16 backlog? 

17 MR. STOCKDALE: Examples would be, a large industry 

18 in a certain area laying off or moving. That's the primary one, 

19 is employers — 

20 SENATOR AYALA: But currently, you have no backlog? 

21 MR. STOCKDALE: Currently we're handling our cases. 

22 There's always a certain amount of cases, if you will, in the 

23 pipeline. 

24 J I'm defining a backlog as something whereby the 

25 workload is coming in at a rate that our current staff cannot 

26 handle, and that is not in existence at this moment. 

27 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you noticed any significant 


i number of cases where you felt constrained by the law, that it 

2 might have produced an unfairness for either the employer or the 

3 employee? 

4 MR. STOCKDALE: Not that probably can be handled by 

5 legislation. 

6 I think whenever you have statutory time limits, 

7 there is always the possibility that, given certain reasons, and 

8 there's a cut-off time, that there can be a problem. We tend to 

9 be quite generous in assessing these situations, so — 

10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You could grant extensions? 

11 MR. STOCKDALE: It isn't so much as granting an 

12 extension. It is coming up with the reason why, under the 

13 circumstances, that particular, if you will, time limit wouldn't 

14 apply. 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

16 SENATOR PETRIS: I've forgotten. I think he's some 

17 kind of an Horatio Alger-type. 

18 Who was Gustavus Adolphus? 

19 MR. STOCKDALE: Gustavus Adolphus was a Swedish king, 

20 sir. 

21 I graduated from Gustavus Adolphus College. I think 

22 that's one of the first things they make you learn. 

23 SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

24 MR. STOCKDALE: You're welcome. 

25 I happened to be one of the few Norwegians, sir, who 

26 went to Gustavus Adolphus, from an Irish and Norwegian 

27 background. Perhaps I was a little bit out of my element for a 

28 while. 

1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anyone present who wishes to 

2 comment either for or against the appointment? 

3 What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

4 SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation 

5 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator 

6 Beverly. 

7 Are you ready to go to a vote? Call the roll. 

8 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


10 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 


12 SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 


14 SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


16 SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


18 SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

19 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck. 

20 MR. STOCKDALE: Thank you, Senator. Thank you, 

21 gentlemen. 

22 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Keep up the good work. 

23 Mr. Weston is our next person. 

24 | MR. WESTON: Hello, sir. 

25 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How are you today? 

26 MR. WESTON: Not bad. How are you? 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

Do you want to tell us a little about you? 






1 MR. WESTON: Okay. 

2 My name is Gary Weston. I'm from Lake Elsinore, 

3 California in Riverside County, down south. I've lived there 

4 for 14 years. Before that, I lived in Orange County. I'm born 

5 and raised in Southern California 

6 I currently attend high school at Temescal Canyon, 

7 which is in the community of Lake Elsinore. 
I've been on the Board since August. My background 

9 in education, as far as that goes, I've been in the same school 
district all the way through. And I got involved with the 
operations of the district actually my freshman year of high 
school, which is rare for a student. My mother had always been 

13 quite involved, and rarely did I have a ride home. So, often I 

14 attended meetings with her, and this was out of convenience. 

15 And I would sit in the meeting rooms and do homework, or 

16 whatever. 

17 And one day, one of the assistant superintendents 

18 turned to me and asked me for an opinion. And I was kind of 

19 shocked as a freshman would be. I took it in, thought about it, 

20 gave a response. He decided to put me on the committee. From 

21 there, it just kind of snowballed. I got on committee after 

22 committee. I met some of the board members from my district. 

23 They asked me to serve as the student representative on the 

24 board. I was the second one in my district. I've served in 
that position for three years 

26 I heard about — at a California School Boards 

convention, I heard about the position on the State Board of 
- Education, and I was just — that was my goal, my dream. And 


1 after a six-month process, I was fortunate enough to be 

2 appointed by the Governor. 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Now are you a senior? 

4 MR. WESTON: Yes, I'm a senior in high school. 

5 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So you graduate this June? 

6 MR. WESTON: Yes, I will. 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How long does the position run? 

8 MR. WESTON: The position goes until August 1. 

9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You were appointed, then, sometime 

10 back when you — 

11 MR. WESTON: Yes, I was appointed actually about this 

12 time last year. In fact, we're waiting on the appointment of my 

13 successor. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have they already got someone? 

15 MR. WESTON: They're down to three finalists, and the 

16 Governor's appointments secretary has already interviewed them, 

17 and we're waiting for word. 

18 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are you going to do next 

19 year? 

20 MR. WESTON: Well, right now it looks like I'll 

21 either attend USC or UCLA, remain in Southern California, study 

22 political science, and probably go onto law school. Hopefully, 

23 I would like to work in the State Legislature one day. 

24 SENATOR LEWIS: USC is your first choice, right? 

25 MR. WESTON: Actually, I'm touring both campuses this 

26 week, so my decision will be very soon. 

27 SENATOR PETRIS: Where is your high school? 

MR. WESTON: My high school is in Riverside County. 



' SENATOR PETRIS: Which city? 

2 MR. WESTON: Lake Elsinore. Actually, it's not 

3 within the city limits. It's right outside of the city limits, 

4 but it's in Lake Elsinore Unified School District. 

5 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anyone present who wants to 

6 comment? 

7 Any questions from Members? Senator Ayala. 

8 SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to ask the gentleman here, 

9 what do you think should be the state ' s policy on educating 

10 undocumented immigrant children? 

11 MR. WESTON: Well, as a member of the State Board of 

12 Education, I took an oath, and that oath was to uphold and 

13 defend the Constitution of the State of California and the 

14 Constitution of the United States . 

15 As it is right now, it's unconstitutional not to 

16 educate those children. Therefore, as a member of the State 

17 Board, I feel that it is our responsibility until that policy 

18 changes, and when it does, I will uphold and defend that. But 

19 until that policy changes, I believe we should. 

20 SENATOR AYALA: The Constitution requires that anyone 

21 born in this country be treated like a full-time citizen, even 

22 though their parents may be illegal, so they're entitled to an 

23 education. Is that your position? 

24 MR. WESTON: Personally, my position may differ. 

25 SENATOR AYALA: Your position is different than what? 

26 MR. WESTON: Than the position that I will uphold and 

27 defend as a sworn member of the State Board. 

SENATOR AYALA: That question would come up at your 



• meetings sometime. Would it not be on your agenda, the idea of 

2 educating our citizens with illegal parents? 

3 MR. WESTON: We've actually already dealt with the 

4 issue. In fact, what we did, because it was not in the 

5 Constitution, we took no position simply because we do what the 

6 Constitution tells us to. And so, we waited. 

7 We're still waiting. We'll be waiting for quite a 

8 long time as it goes through litigation. But as of right now, I 

9 believe we must, as the Supreme Court has told us to. 

10 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

11 MR. WESTON: Sure. 

12 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

13 Any particular issue been the most difficult for you 

14 during your tenure on the Board? 

15 MR. WESTON: Well, as far as the most difficult goes, 

16 as far as the most controversial was our textbook adoption of 

17 this year, in which we adopted mathematics textbooks for grades 

18 K-8. 

19 We had some — we had opposition on both sides just 

20 because of the way that the procedures went and things . There 

21 was some controversy and hearsay that turned into different 

22 things. We kind of got lobbied from all sides, from different 

23 textbook companies, that sort of thing. That was probably the 

24 most controversial. 

25 But I believe the most pertinent would be the things 

26 we're dealing with now. We're attempting to — right now, the 

27 State Board of Education is in a very good position. I think 

28 the whole Department of Education is in a very good position, 


1 because right now, the Board's goals, and the Superintendent's 

2 goals, and the goals of the Legislature seem — and the Governor 

3 — all seem to be pointed in the same direction. 

4 I think a lot of progress will — well, the next few 

5 years will determine whether or not we can make a lot of 

6 progress. I feel the key goals right now are accountability, 

7 assessment, infrastructure, trying to deal with the facilities 

8 crunch. I think these are the things that we're going to have 

9 to deal with in the coming years . 

10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That are essentially practical and 

11 nonideological matters. 

12 MR. WESTON: In my view, we must deal with the 

13 practical before we can change anything ideologically. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You were on the local board for 

15 three years? 

16 MR. WESTON: Three years. 

17 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any particular controversy of note 

18 during those years? 

19 MR. WESTON: Actually, I come from a very good 

20 district. Our school board, and our assistant superintendents, 

21 and our superintendent is just incredible. The way that they 

22 handle issues and everything, we really haven't had that much 

23 controversy. 

24 In fact, the only issue I can remember that was 

25 somewhat controversial was my sophomore year, we had a problem 

26 with some of the revisions we had to make in our budget. And 

27 what ended up happening was, we cut back on busing. We revised 

28 some routes, extended the walking distance, and did some of 


1 those kind of things. 

2 I conducted student surveys, and I said basically, 

3 "You have two choices. Either we up the walking distance or we 

4 charge for busing. " And I presented that to the students in my 

5 district, and the students opted for the increased walking 

6 distance. And so, I presented that to the board. 

7 Well, after the board went ahead and increased the 

8 walking distance, some different parents in the communities and 

9 things realized that maybe this wasn't such a good idea. And 

10 they came down, and there was a lot of heated testimony for a 

11 couple months, but ultimately it died down. And the district 

12 worked out things with some of the parents that were in special 

13 needs cases, and everything worked out very well. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the pleasure of the 

15 Committee? 

16 SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

17 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

18 May I substitute the previous unanimous roll? 

19 That'll be the order. 

20 [Thereupon the previous roll 

21 was substituted, and the 

22 confirmation was recommended 

23 with the vote of 5-0.] 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you and good luck. 

25 MR. WESTON: Thank you, sir. 

26 [Thereupon this portion of the 

27 Senate Rules Committee hearing 

28 was terminated at approximately 

2:27 P.M.] 

— ooOoo — 





3 I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 

4 State of California, do hereby certify: 

5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that 

6 the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 

7 was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 

8 thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 

10 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 

11 interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

^fif IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 

13 this / 6 day of April, 1995. 




17 ^ ^ EVELYN J. jfc^ZAK 

Shorthand Reporter 






Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.25 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 276-R when ordering. 





ROOM 113 


MONDAY, MAY1, 1995 
3:50 P.M. 


JUN1 1995 



Reported by: 



ROOM 113 

MONDAY, MAY 1, 1995 
3:50 P.M. 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 







































GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 



Public Employment Relations Board 
































Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 


Public Employment Relations Board 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Any Recommendations for Improvement 1 

Any Changes Needed in Substantive Labor Law ... 2 

Hayward Teachers' Strike and Reason PERB 

Requested Restraining Order from Local 

Judge 3 

Motion to Confirm 4 

Committee Action 4 

Termination of Proceedings 5 

Certificate of Reporter 6 




1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 — ooOoo — 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We will now go to David Caffrey 

4 for PERB. Good afternoon, sir. Sorry you had to wait so long. 

5 We finally wrapped up our floor session. 

6 MR. CAFFREY: That's what I understood. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you wish to begin with any 

opening comment? 

MR. CAFFREY: Perhaps very briefly, I'd like to say 
that I have more than 23 years of state service. I've worked in 
a variety of administrative and policy areas, including the 
labor relations area. 

For the last three-plus years, I've been a member of 
the Public Employment Relations Board, which is the Board I've 
been reappointed to. In that time, I've participated in and/or 
authored approximately 200 formal Board decisions, and I think 
that those decisions and my performance as a member of the Board 
to date are the best indicators that I can give you of my 
ability to perform as a member of this Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would you have any recommendations 
for improvement in Board processes that we ought to know as 

MR. CAFFREY: Before I joined the Board, about five 
or six years ago, it's my understanding they had a staff of 
about 112 at the maximum point. Our current staff is under 50. 

I'm not complaining about that. I think that we have 
— it's kind of necessity being the mother of invention. We 
have streamlined our processes just about as much as I think 





























they can be. We're still getting a relatively constant workload 
of unfair practice charges, but we're handling them in just as 
timely a fashion, and in some cases a little more timely 
fashion, than we did five or six years ago. 

So, I think it's just — you know, we're constantly 
reviewing what we're doing, and the fiscal realities make that 
essential that we continued to do that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you noticed, as you've had to 
apply substantive law to the disputes that come before you, a 
lack of clarity or a need for any changes that you would 
recommend in the substantive labor law? 

MR. CAFFREY: Well, we have — there is — we have 
three basic statutes that we administer. One is the Educational 
Employment Relations Act, which is the K through community 
colleges. Then we have the Ralph C. Dills Act which is for 
state employees. Then we have the Higher Education Employment 
Relations Act. 

That one is a little unique. The other two for 
school and state employees are fairly consistent. The HEERA, as 
we call it, has a few unique qualities to it. That's not 
necessarily bad in any way, but we do try to, in the interests 
of economy and efficiency, standardize our operations. So, 
periodically we suggest some amendments to that statute, or by 
adoption of rule by our Board, which we have the authority to do 
under the Acts, we bring it more into conformity with the 
processes that we use in administering the other two laws. 

But in very — in broad terms, they are kind of the 
classic collective bargaining statutes, certainly for public 





























sector; very similar also to the Myers, Millius, Brown Act which 
governs local employees. And so, we have a good deal of 
consistency in place already. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That sounds to me like saying 
basically no, that — 

MR. CAFFREY: I don't think we would make any — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — you're not urging any major 
change . 

MR. CAFFREY: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There was a matter that came 
before the Board last year in my district, the Hayward teachers' 

MR. CAFFREY: Yes, I was a member of that panel. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Could you help me understand what 
the legal basis for PERB suggesting a restraining order to the 
local judge? 

MR. CAFFREY: Our law indicates that a strike action, 
or an action by the employer to implement terms and conditions 
of employment, cannot take place before the statutory bargaining 
process has been completed. 

In the case of the Hayward situation, the majority of 
the Board believed that the bargaining process was still under 
way, but it had been a very long and protracted one with many 
frustrations. And so, the Teachers' Union called the strike at 
the beginning of the school year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And that's what was contrary to 
that law. 

MR. CAFFREY: That is basically the issue. We went 





























into court, and the judge agreed. 

It's similar to the baseball strike situation, only 
in that case, the NLRB determined that the employer tried to 
implement terms and conditions of employment without completing 
the good faith bargaining process. You can't do that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand. 

Well, our file does not reflect any opposition to 
your appointment, so for someone who's been there for three 
years, you must have been careful. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

MS. MICHEL: A CSEA representative stopped by just 
before the hearing to let us know they supported. 


Other questions at all? 

We have a motion by Senator Beverly to recommend 
confirmation. Call the roll, if you will. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris. Senator 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Three to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Why don't we leave it on call so 
that Senator Ayala may vote if he wishes. 

Congratulations. Keep up the good work. 

MR. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 





























[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
4:00 P.M.] 

— ooOoo — 


I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this / ^^ day of May, 1995. 




















i 8 " ^Shorthand Reporter 





Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 277-R when ordering. 






ROOM 113 


MONDAY, MAY 8, 1995 
2:21 RM. 


JUN1 1995 



Reported by: 



ROOM 113 

MONDAY, MAY 8, 1995 
2:21 P.M. 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 






































GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 



Workers' Compensation Appeals Board 
































Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 


Workers' Compensation Appeals Board 1 

Opening Statement 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Hardest Decision to Date 1 

Need for Statutory Changes 2 

Apportionment Area 2 

Motion to Confirm 3 

Committee Action 3 

Termination of Proceedings 4 

Certificate of Reporter ... 5 



— OO0OO — 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Next we'll move on to Ms. Squires 

If you'll join us. 

It ' s not uncommon for someone to begin with any sort 
of opening statement. If you'd wish to, please feel free to. 

MS. SQUIRES: Well, good afternoon. Thank you for 
the privilege of being here. 

Happy Birthday. 

It's been a privilege to serve as a Commissioner for 
the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, and to have an 
opportunity to serve the people in that capacity, and bring to 
the position a perspective of impartiality and compassion and 
interest in serving the legislative intent of the workers' 
compensation laws. 

So, thank you for the chance of being here. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Many of us are pleased that you 
replaced the gentleman that was there before you, who had a 
capacity for irrationality that even the Governor's Office had 
to privately admit. Glad you're in the driver's seat. 

What's been the hardest decision up to now? Any one 
stand out in your mind as a difficult issue? 

MS. SQUIRES: Not really. I think what I try and do 
is read the codes and the cases, the Court of Appeal cases in 
particular, and be able to apply the law as strictly as 
possible. So, I don't know that anything that comes to mind. 

Some of the issues are more complex, some of the 
apportionment issues and the like. 





























CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any areas in which the law seemed 
to need some refinements, clarification, that you've bumped into 
so far? 

MS. SQUIRES: I think probably in terms of areas, how 
they turn out in practice, how you see people struggling with 
some of them, maybe the apportionment area, 4663 and 4750 
sometimes have some difficulties in how they translate. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is this mostly apportioning 
between different employers? 

MS. SQUIRES: No, no. This is apportioning between 
pre-existing diseases, and aggravation of injuries, and 
multiple, cumulative traumas and specific injuries. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And job-caused. 

Is that a statutory problem, or just the nature of 

MS. SQUIRES: I don't know that it's a statutory 
problem. I think there may be confusion in the community as to 
what exactly — how this should work out, what language is 
needed in medical reports and the like. 

So again, in the short nine months that I've been 
there, I'm just coming to understand more some of these 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me inquire if there are 
Members that have any questions they wish to pose? 

This may be an easy one. We shouldn't let her get 
away without some modest hazing. 

[ Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't have any, partly because I 

read the materials, and I'm satisfied that you're a 
conscientious and disciplined worker and trying to do a good 

MS. SQUIRES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the pleasure of the 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Is there any opposition? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There is none. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any last words? Do we need to 
read you your rights before this final rite of passage here? 
Are you sure you want this job? 

MS. SQUIRES: I'm just grateful that I've had a 
chance to serve in it. It's very interesting, and it's a good 
group of people, and I'm excited to be there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you complete your theological 

MS. SQUIRES: Yes, I did. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Maybe they need a little of that 
there, too. 

All right, call the roll, if you will. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris. Senator 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Four to zero. 


MS. SQUIRES: Thank you very much. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
2:36 P.M.] 

— 00O00 — 





























I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this ()~~~~ day of May, 1995. 


Shorthand' Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 278-R when ordering. 





ROOM 113 


MONDAY, MAY 15, 1995 
1:35 P.M. 


JUNl 1995 

SA^ r FRfW r 3 































ROOM 113 

MONDAY, MAY 15, 1995 
1:35 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


DAVID S. LEE, Member 

The Regents of the University of California 

ALAN WONG, Vice Chair 

University of California Student Association 

California State Prison, Avenal 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

DAVID S. LEE, Member 

The Regents of the University of California 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Most Difficult Decision 2 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Position on Raising Student Fees 3 

Increased Salaries of Administrators 4 

High Salaries for Professors 6 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Expertise Qualifications 6 

Number of Employees 7 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Preparations for Increased Student 

Population in Future 8 

Participation in U.C.'s Lobby Day 

in Sacramento 8 

Affirmative Action Policies 9 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Complaints about Affirmative Action with 

Respect to Admission 10 

Current Status of Admissions 11 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Position on Senate Bill 48 (Lockyer) 12 


INDEX (Continued) 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Location of New U.C. Campus 15 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Funding for Higher Education 16 

Need for More Money 18 

Witness in Support: 

ALAN WONG, Vice Chair 

University of California Student Association 2 

Motion to Confirm 21 

Committee Action 22 


California State Prison at Avenal 22 

Background and Experience 2 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Ability to Handle Influx of New Inmates 24 

Differences in Institutions 24 

Current Emphasis of Level II Facility 25 

Inmate Participation in Programs 25 

Prison Industries 26 

Waiting Lists for Programs 26 

Training Programs 27 

Most Difficult Issue in Past Year 28 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Ideal Prison Population 29 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Median Lenth of Stay for Prisoners 30 

Drug and Alcohol Programs in Institution 31 


INDEX (Continued) 

Motion to Confirm 31 

Committee Action 32 

Termination of Proceedings 32 

Certificate of Reporter 33 

— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The first appointee required to 
appear is Dr. David Lee. 

Dr. Lee, if you would join us. Dr. Lee, sometimes 
appointees begin with a brief description of their business or 
community activities, why they enjoy the job, or whatever. If 
you wish to begin with any opening statements, please feel free 
to do so. 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

I'm an immigrant come to this country since 1956, and 
I was educated from mainland China, Taiwan, South America. 

And through my careers, I find that education is most 
important thing to change a society or give a person opportunity 
to grow. And I have done — this country has been very good to 
me. I have been working as an engineer and also started a few 
companies, and also I'm on the board of many companies, 
including even some schools. 

The reason I'm involved with education is because, 
like I said, it's very important for the next generations and 
for the future of the country. 

Therefore, I'm enjoying my job as a Regent because I 
believe that it's the most important thing for the State of 
California for the future. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You were appointed last fall; I 
guess in September? 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So you've now had several months 

of activities as a Regent. 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's been the most difficult 
decision you've had to face so far? Anything in particular? 

DR. LEE: Yes. The issue is the quality of the 
school . 

I think it's that we have to protect that. We have 
to protect it for the product is the student. And I think it's 
very important for the universities. 

And I think one of the issue * s going to be the 
budget, and the tuition issue, and I think that will be the most 
important issue for the school. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How about during the last eight 
months, has there been a hot one yet that you've had to struggle 

DR. LEE: Well, it's like when you have an 
organization like the U.C. system, with nine campuses, and three 
labs, and school, medical school, you're going to have a lot of 

And I think some of the issue's going to be what's 
going to happen to the hospitals, and what's going to happen to 
the research/teaching balance. I think those are the issues 
that are going to be faced. 

I do not believe that is a short-time issue. It's 
going to a long-term issue for the years to come. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'd encourage Members to jump in 
any time you have questions. Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Since 1990, the fees for the students 





























have risen 134 percent. The Governor wants to raise them 
another 10 percent this year. 

What is your position on that? 

DR. LEE: You see, I came over to this country with 
$600 in my pocket. I couldn't get into Berkeley because I 
couldn't pay the out-of-state tuition fee. And I have to attend 
a school in Montana because they don't charge me out-of-state 
tuition fee. 

So, I am very sympathy with the students on this 

Same time, I believe that, you know, the state should 
find money to help the student, because that is most important 
product for the state, because eventually, they're going to be 
the best taxpayer for the state. 

And I believe that to get better efficiency, because 
is a lot of American industry are downsizing to make it more 
efficient, we have to find a way. 

We also have to find a way to — the issue of 
increasing fees is not going to be a short-term issue; it's 
going to be a long-term issue because the state find ourselves 
that we do not have the continued supporting and also the 
federal government is cutting down on that issue. 

Therefore, I believe that in the long term, we have 
to find different ways, and increased tuition is not the best 
way, I believe. 

And especially, I am person to believe that if a 
student is qualified to attend a University of California, which 
is the best institution in the United States, and that there 

should be a way to provide the student to graduate. I would 
like to see more of finding summer jobs. I would like to find 
some way of helping the student so that they can get the best 

Increased tuition at that rate, I believe, is too 
high because, if you look at industry, that we have increased 
about — salary increase about 3 to 5 percent. And for people 
to support a 10 percent increase, I think, is very, very high. 

SENATOR AYALA: You would not be sympathetic to that, 
increasing the fees by 10 percent? 

DR. LEE: That's correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: It doesn't make sense to a lot of 
people up and down the state that we are continuing to increase 
the salaries of administrators, yet increase the fees of 
students. It doesn't seem to jive at all. 

DR. LEE: No, I believe those two are different 

SENATOR AYALA: Not to the people up and down the 
state. It may be different in the funding, but up and down the 
state, people look at the administrators getting more than the 
President does, yet the students have got to pay additional 

They may not be the same, but out there the 
perception is they're the same to the people out there. 

DR . LEE : Sure . 

I believe those two are a little bit different issue. 
Let me just express my opinion on it. 

We, the state, if we made a decision that this is the 





























best education we want to provide, we have to have, you know, 
get the best product, which is the student, then we have to have 
the tool to achieve that. So, we have to get the best teachers, 
best professors, that we can afford. 

Now, it is, you know, we are dealing with not a 
California issue. We are dealing with a worldwide issue and 
also state, in the United States, issue, is what is the other 
people's salaries are. 

If we want to get the bright, the best, we have to 
pay whatever it is because one of the costs in California is 
housing issue, you know. Therefore, we have to pay whatever is 
necessary to get the best people. Now, that is after we get the 
best people. 

Now, relate to the cost, you have to make the same 
more efficient and more — today, you have to get more 
competitive because we are very — we are in a very competitive 
environment. We have to get and make sure that is what we pay 
for, is what we got, and also to find the ways to solve the 
issue of financial issues. 

SENATOR AYALA: You're absolutely correct. However, 
we keep doing this because we're afraid to lose a professor at 
Cal. because Baylor wants to pay more, or somewhere else. But 
then we have the mid-management, so to speak, in terms of 
professors who are coming up, that some day are going to be just 
as good as the ones that have been taken off by other 
universities . 

So, we have to have confidence on those professors 
who are not at the top level, but the coming up, young 


DR. LEE: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't know when this competition 
will stop, because every university wants the best, and so does 
California and other universities. 

So, there has to be some kind of a balancing or limit 
to where we can no longer pay what we're paying. We can't pay 
these professors more than the President of the United States 
gets, you know, because they don't have that responsibility that 
the President does. So, there's a limit as to how much we can 
go with those things. 

DR. LEE: Sure. It is a market-driven issue, and 
also a training issue. We have to train our young professors — 
I mean, students, then some of them will make the best 
professors in our schools. 

When you're able to achieve that goal, then you can 
go out and find more people for giving jobs. And therefore, I 
think the salary will be coming down. 

But if you are the only few of them have this 
capability, I think the cost will be higher. 

SENATOR AYALA: On the other hand, if we keep raising 
the fees of the students, there won't be enough students for 
these high salaried professors to teach. 

DR. LEE: I agree with that. 


SENATOR LEWIS: Dr. Lee, what quality of expertise do 
you think you bring to the Board of Regents? 

DR. LEE: Being an engineer by training, and I have 





























working on the first electronic calculators, and I also working 
on the first staging word printer, I have started many 
companies . 

And I believe that I have built companies which are 
successful in the industry, able to compete in the worldwide 
environment, especially with Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and mainland 
China included. 

Therefore, I believe that in California, especially 
U.C., because we cannot move the schools because U.C. has to be 
in California, with this condition, we have to make it more 
efficient. We have to make it better, and I think with my 
international experience, I believe that I can contribute to the 
school . 

SENATOR LEWIS: Are you presently an employer in 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many California employees do 
you have? 

DR. LEE: I'm associated with a few companies. I am 
not a CEO of a company. I'm sitting on many boards. 

If you ask all the boards to which I'm sitting on, 
and I have more than 2,000 people. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions or comments? 

We are told routinely, Dr. Lee, that maybe a decade 
from now there's going to be this new explosion of students. 
We'll all be gone, but you'll still be there if you're still 
doing this sort of thing. 

What thoughts do you have about preparing for that 



DR. LEE: First of all, to using our existing schools 
as much as possible, because we do the structure, we do have the 
overhead already. On top of that, I believe that we have some 
— you know, we have the best schools, and we have more space 
available some campus. 

And if we have necessary, we have to get another 
campus, and we have to do everything possible to look at our 
customer, which is the student, and then trying to serve them 
the best for the state. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There was a lobbying day last week 
for UC. Were you participating in that by any chance? 

DR. LEE: Yes, I was here. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You were one of those? 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How would you characterize the 
message that you were trying to deliver, and what kind of 
reactions or responses did you hear? 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

I think the school, U.C., is a state institution. It 
has to work with the Legislature, as communication, I believe, 
is very important. So, people here knows what U.C. is doing, 
and also any comments, I think, is very important so that — 
because we are a state institution. 

I believe that the time I was here, I think I had a 
few good meetings to understand, to tell the Legislature what we 
are doing. I believe it's a very positive, because I personally 
believe that we should do more of it, instead of there's no 




























communication between here and the U.C. system. 

And I would like to see that, you know, at least come 
over here once or twice a year, and to just, if nothing else, 
just to say hello, and to listen to the comments people has. I 
think that is very important. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Recently, there's been 
considerable public discussion, partly promoted by Regent Ward 
Conner ly's raising the matter, of affirmative action policies. 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In the University. 

What's your understanding of what's happening now 
within the University, and what would be your own thoughts about 
this general subject matter? 

DR. LEE: As a minority, I came over there in '56. 
And I know what a lot of people are going through, because I was 
living in Berkeley, and I know some areas that we cannot even 
buy a house back in the '50s — I'm sorry, the early '60s. 

And I understand the issue. I think this is what's 
happening is, we have to examine the issue in school to see what 
is working, what is not working. We should not make a step just 
to eliminating or doing something. We should look at this 
thing, what is working, what is not working. Then if it's 
working, we should let it continue. If it's not working, we 
should make changes because time has been changing. 

I also believe this issue is a legislative issue, is 
not a school issue, because I think it's happening to the whole 
state. I don't think it's only dealing with the University. 

I would, you know, separate those two issues, and I'm 


hoping that the Legislature will make a decision for the state 
instead of the school. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The problem is that we get 
complaints directly in our offices and also various comments in 
the press that the worst part of affirmative action is with 
respect to admissions to our higher education system. They 
claim, a lot of parents, that their children couldn't get in, 
even though they had good grades, because some special treatment 
was given to a person belonging to a particular minority group. 

Have you had similar complaints, the Regents? 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

On the other hand, I believe that a school, if we 
made the decision we wanted U.C. to be the best school in the 
state and also in the nation, or worldwide, and then we have to 
take a look of what is best for our product, which is the 
student. And I believe that we have to examine the issue, then 
decide what is best on it. 

For example, you know, if you look at all the 
basketball teams, there's no Asian in it. And if you look at 
the football players, again, there's no Asian on it. 

But we want to have the best, so whoever is the best 
come up to be. 

On the other hand, I guess — 

SENATOR PETRIS: There may not be any Asians on those 
teams, but for many, many years, the University kept a certain 
number of slots open for athletes. 

DR. LEE: Yes. 






























SENATOR PETRIS: Nobody complained about that. They 
had some famous football player from Brooklyn High School who 
was about to be recruited by every university in the country, 
and U.C. recruited him because they wanted a good football 
player. His grades weren't so hot. Nobody complained. 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: But if we're recruiting a scientist 
from Brooklyn High who happened to be in a minority, who's in 
the same academic area, then there 'd be complaints. 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's been my experience. 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Then later, the same people who 
complained about those kinds of preferences and said it should 
be only on merit, they found a wave of people from minority 
groups that were beating everybody else on merit, and they 
started demanding quotas: You've got too many of this group, 
too many of that group, and leaving out the other one. 

So, they lost interest in merit, wanted to go back to 
certain numbers. 

What's the current status? Are they still doing 

DR. LEE: I don't — I'm sorry, I do not have an 
answer for you because I don't know all the issue on it, 

I attended all the meetings as much as I can, and I 
really don't have an answer for you on that issue, you know. I 
wish I know a little more to answer that. 


1 SENATOR PETRIS: Following Senator Lockyer's question 




























on the reaction to Mr. Conner ly's comments, I guess it's too 
early for you to tell what actually the University Regents are 
doing. They announced that they were going to study it and do 
something . 

DR. LEE: That's right. And I personally believe 
that we should look at the — examine the issue, and then take a 
look at this thing to see what it is. Then we can go from 
there . 

But we have not — I have not, at least, received 
anything on that issue yet. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I haven't seen any evidence that the 
system's broken. Mr. Conner ly, who raised the issue, as we 
recently learned, got this classification for a special contract 
as a member of a minority, something that he strongly opposed, 
according to his statement to the Regents. 

So, I would recommend to the Regents you just drop 
that, forget about it. 

DR. LEE: Thank you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Considering the source. 


SENATOR AYALA: I have an additional question. 

Are you familiar with the Chairman's Senate Bill 48, 
which would limit the opportunities of high level employees at 
U.C. from participating on the different corporate boards where 
they make more than $100,000 a year, some of them? 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: Yes what? What is your position on 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You can say your opinion, and my 
vote will be unaffected by your response. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR AYALA: What is your position on that? 

DR. LEE: As a, you know, I think as — you know, I 
come from Silicon Valley in Santa Clara. 

SENATOR AYALA: We won't hold it against you, but go 

DR. LEE: I also, as a person starting many 
companies, and I believe that for the educators to be sitting on 
boards is a positive thing, because they should understanding 
what's happening outside of the academic world. And especially 
for them to be involved with it. 

Now, the question is rewarding the issue, and what is 
fair, what is not fair. 

I believe there's got to be some kind of incentive 
for them to want to be on the board. And now, just how much 
rewarding and how much time, that's the issue we should address. 

If it's their, you know, personal time, or if this is 
some time from the school, and I believe it's a positive thing, 
because they are spending time — by the way, I never worked 40 
hours a week, you know. I working much longer hours. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't have a problem with members 
of the Regents who've already been on boards when they become a 
Regent . 

But to be using that position on the Board of Regents 
to be on a corporate board, it's a little bit different. I 


don't think you should allow that. 

DR. LEE: Senator, I believe that this is — if a 
person who do not associate with industry, I believe is a loss 
for the school because they should be associated with companies, 
what is happening outside. 

Now, what is the rewarding issue, that should be 
examined on that. And I don't know today how much should the 
right amount, and what time. We should — as a Regent, we 
should look at those people to see how much should be. Some of 
them, maybe, should pay back if they take the time, pay back to 
the school. 

They are — you know, I am involved with some 
debenture company. A lot of people sitting on boards, you know. 
There is a certain guide rule, certain amount has to give back 
to the partnership. 

SENATOR AYALA: You had that position before you 
became a Regent. 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have no problem with that. 

But once you become a Regent, because you are a 
Regent you get onto these commissions, I see that a little bit 

DR. LEE: There is some difference. There's no 
question about it. 

This is why being a Regent would give you a higher 
position than if you do not have this position. 

That's why I'm here. I would like to be a member. 

So, we have to examine that issue to find out what is 


right amount, what is fair. I think that, you can really able 
to get that. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me just insert on this topic 
that this is an area in which we're often urged to try to run 
government more like a business. And while there are some basic 
differences, this is an area in which it makes sense to me. 

Usually, and I don't know what your own corporations 
would have done, but I think you mentioned this, Dr. Lee, that 
usually if one board is loaning an officer to another 
corporation, payments would go back to the corporation, not to 
the individual, absent some understanding between the two that 
they get to share it, or split it, or keep it. 

And that's all I've recommended for people like the 
President of U.C., but the current policy allows 52 days, which 
is one day a week, for the President of U.C. to be away from 
work, doing supplementary matters. And currently, he's on 12 
boards for 10 grand each, so 12 0,000 extra a year. 

I don't want to prolong the debate on this topic, but 
just think that's utterly unconscionable and we need to correct 

New campus, Merced or Madera? Do you have a 

DR. LEE: No. It's not I'm trying to back from it. 
Has not — I've received a lot of postcards, and I think some 
meeting they will present both side of this location. By then, 
we will make the right choice. 

Right now, I don't have enough information to say 


which one is the best, I really don't. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You'll find the better deal is 
Merced, but I'm not involved. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'd like to get your views on 
funding for higher education in general, all three branches, but 
particularly UC. I have some legislation on that. 

I'm sorry I wasn't here earlier. I had to go to 
another committee, but I understand you have expressed yourself 
as wanting to be very helpful to students. 

I've been concerned about the very big increases in 
student fees, which I call a tax on the students and their 
families. And I have legislation to reduce those fees and 
backfill the loss to the higher ed. system through our income 
tax provisions. 

Over the last 15 years, we've had this unholy 
competition for limited funds between the prisons and higher 
education. And the facts appear to show very clearly that — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The prisons won. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, exactly. The facts appear to 
show that the prisons won, and that in another, I think, three 
years, we're going to have more people in our state prison than 
we have students in all nine U.C. campuses combined. And it's 
getting worse. 

And all this took place before Three Strikes passed. 
Now with Three Strikes, the projections make it even worse, 
according to the Rand report. I suppose you're familiar with 


it, that study that projects that the impact of Three Strikes in 
this fight between prisons and higher ed. , that in about seven 
years, there won't be any money left at all for our public 
education system. 

Now, I've been looking for ways, and several of our 
Legislators are concerned, since we have that projection, we 
can't just sleep on it and hope it doesn't happen. And we 
shouldn't wait until the year 2002 for the people to say to us, 
"Well, there's no more money for higher ed. You've known it for 
the last seven years. Why didn't you do something about it?" 

So, I'm asking you, as a Regent, do you have any 
proposals? Do you plan to talk to the Governor, for example, 
and exchange views with the Governor, maybe offer a plan, either 
individually or maybe as a group, the Regents, to see to it that 
we have adequate funding for our higher ed. system, to prevent 
what is being predicted from happening? Can you help us out on 

DR. LEE: Before — I'm repeating myself, because I 
came over here with very little limited funds, come to the 
United States. Therefore, I have a — I couldn't attend U.C. 
Berkeley because I did not have the money. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I understand you went to Montana. 

DR. LEE: Yes, that's right. 

And I have been working with the President's Office 
to find different ways and solve this issue. I have made two 
proposals to them, and I'm thinking of — because this is one, 
being an entrepreneur, I believe I don't take no for an answer. 
So, I've been working with them to see is there — what other 


solutions that can happen to solve this issue. 

And they are examining. I went there two trips to 
give them my idea. I'm trying to find a way to work with them. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Two trips to where? 

DR. LEE: To Oakland and to the President's Office, 
trying to work with them. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's in my district, by the way, 
the President's Office. That's one of the reasons I'm 
concerned . 

So, are you doing this on a continuing basis? 

DR. LEE: Yes. I don't have a solution yet, and they 
are examining the possibilities on it. 

You see, I support myself when I went to school, and 
so, I work very hard. But that's why I wanted to find a way so 
that the students can support himself and able, if they are 
qualified, to get — they can get the best education in the 

SENATOR PETRIS: Doesn't it boil down to a matter of 
money? There's just not enough money. Why can't we get more 

DR. LEE: You know, you have to get — it's more, 
many things. It's not one issue, because I don't think if we 
solve money this year, next year we will not have money. I 
think it's a long-term issue. 

I'm trying to work with them to see if there's a way 
so that — to solve this issue long-term. And I don't have a 
— today, I don't have a miracle that says we don't have this 


You know, I think it's going to take a lot of work, 
and cooperation, and everyone concerned to work out this issue. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I'm pleased that you're 
working on it. It seems that with the experience you've had in 
the private sector, you could give us a lot of help. 

The University, I think, up to now, has done a 
magnificent job in hanging on to its students. They haven't had 
to do what Cal. State did, for example, and eliminate 12,000 
courses. That was only two or three years ago. 

They've delivered all the courses. They've kept all 
the students, and they graduated in the expected period of time. 
I think that's a remarkable adjustment that the University made 
internally by cutting where ever they could without destroying 
programs . 

But it can't be done just internally in the 
University. We have to do something, too. 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I would like to see you continue 
that study and tell us what else. Like you said, the problem 
has to be solved here. 

Nobody likes to go out on the trail in the district 
and carry a banner that says, "I want more taxes," but we might 
have to do that. We shouldn't be so afraid of it. 

So, if your studies show that among all the other 
things that need to be done, that we also need a little more 
money by way of taxes, I hope you won't be afraid as a business 
person to say that, and feel you're going to be ostracized by 
all your fellow business people. When it's appropriate, I think 


the business community needs to say it, because it helps creates 
a climate up here that makes it more acceptable. 

DR. LEE: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRI S: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If a solution were easy, one of us 
probably would have suggested it. So, we understand that it's 
not easy, but whether it's efficiencies, productivity, or 
whatever, we're hopeful that you'll have the requisite 
background to help in a constructive way. 

Are there people present who would wish to comment at 
all, either for or against? 

MR. WONG: Good afternoon. I'm Alan Wong. I'm 
currently a student at U.C. Davis, and I'm serving as the Vice 
Chair for the University of California Student Association. 

Today I'm speaking in support of the confirmation of 
Mr. David Lee's appointment to the Board of Regents. 

Over this last year, Regent Lee has shown his genuine 
concern on the rising costs of higher education on numerous 
occasions. In January, he met with students to hear about the 
effect of the increases on their education. This meeting 
included student groups from all over the U.C. systems. He 
showed his willingness to listen to students and his 
understanding of student issues. 

Recently, he also joined a group of Regents to lobby 
in Sacramento for the 38 million augmentation of the U.C. 
budget, which would enable U.C. to avoid a general fee increase. 
We deeply appreciate his effort to ensure affordable higher 


Regent Lee has also demonstrated his commitment to 
overseeing the University's practice in capital expenditures. 
During the January Regents' meeting, he questioned the necessity 
of some of the capital spending on medical centers. 

We believe that this kind of commitment and 
willingness to question proposal is exactly what the state 

Recently, the University has been facing very 
difficult problems. It can continue to provide the highest 
quality education to California's citizens only if it has a 
governing board which is committing — which has committed to 
serve the public and care about education. 

We believe Mr. Lee has demonstrated his commitment, 
ability, and caring over this last year, and we'll be happy to 
see him to continue his service on the Board of Regents. 

Thank you. 


Are there questions? I guess not. Thank you very 

Is there anyone else present that would wish to make 
any comment? Further questions from Members? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

SENATOR AYALA: I was going to suggest, Mr. Lee, if 
you folks are in a bind about finding a location in the San 
Joaquin Valley, I know good place in Southern Cal. where we've 
got five prisons. We'll welcome a college campus: the Chino 

DR. LEE: Thank you. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, Senator Beverly has 
made a motion. Let's call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Congratulations, good luck, and 
keep up the good work. 

DR. LEE: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Montana's a great state, but I'm 
glad you decided to come back. 

DR. LEE: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, Warden Madding is the 
next appointee for our consideration. 

Mr. Madding, do you want to come on up. Good 

MR. MADDING: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you wish, sir, to begin with 
any kind of opening comment? I notice you have a piece of paper 

MR. MADDING: Yes, I would. It's a small piece of 




MR. MADDING: I'd just like to tell the Committee 
that I'm presently the Warden at Avenal State Prison. I've been 
serving in that capacity for one year appointed, and six months 
prior to that. 

My experience in the Department of Corrections, I 
think, is broad and varied. I have 29^ years of experience in 
the Department of Corrections. I started in Tehachapi as a 
correctional officer and was able to promote through the ranks 
to Sierra Conservation Center at Jamestown, over to South CC in 
Chino. I went out to serve as a parole agent in Los Angeles 
County. From there, I went back to Tehachapi for another 
experience, and then on to San Quentin where I worked in the 
adjustment center and on condemned row for a period of time. 

From there, I went back to Southern California, to 
the California Rehabilitation Center at Norco, over to 
California Institution for Men at Chino, on to the California 
Men's Colony at San Luis Obispo, and finally to Avenal, where I 
served as Chief Deputy Warden prior to my appointment to Warden. 

I think that wide scope of experience has prepared me 
well to be a warden in the institution. I've had a 
distinguished career. 

I feel that the safety and security of a facility is 
my paramount job, and I'm responsible for 1186 staff members at 
Avenal and 5600 inmates. 

I basically believe that a combination of locks, 
fences, and voices control prisons. If you treat staff with 


dignity and respect, that trickles down and you manage. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I noticed it said you wanted to 
show that wardens can smile and still take care of necessary 

MR. MADDING: It's hard to smile from here. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. MADDING: I'm doing my best, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me ask if there are any 
questions first. 

This has been on line now for several years, hasn't 

MR. MADDING: Yes, it has. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're going to get a bunch of the 
new inmates; that is, the emergency beds. 

MR. MADDING: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can you handle those? 

MR. MADDING: Yes, we can. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've worked in six or seven 
different institutions. 

MR. MADDING: Seven; one twice. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are they all different? 

MR. MADDING: Yes, they are. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How would you account for the 

MR. MADDING: Well, each one has a little different 
mission. Some like preparing inmates to go out to camp. 
There's physical fitness, getting ready to actually fight fire, 
to work in the wildlands of the state. 


Some of the facilities are vocational and educational 
mission missions. Others are hard security, just to keep those 
people away from the citizens of California until a law lets 
them back out. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's your sense of your current 
emphasis among those choices? 

MR. MADDING: Well, first of all, we have to — you 
know, I think every prison's main mission is the safety and 
security of the citizenry of the State of California. That's 
just keep these convicted felons away from that citizenry for 
the term prescribed by law. That's the main thing we have to 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: As a Level II facility, as I 
recall — 

MR. MADDING: Yes, it is. It's a Level II. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How does it fit into those tasks 
that you enumerated of work, or rehabilitation, vocational? 

MR. MADDING: We're a Level II facility; that's 
considered a program institution. We have a high degree of 
education, vocation, and work programs. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many inmates participate ;in 

MR. MADDING: Participate in — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In any of those programs? 

MR. MADDING: We have 960 today involved in education 
and vocational; 504 in prison industries work programs. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that different? 

MR. MADDING: That is different, yes. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are they doing? What are 
they making in prison industries? 

MR. MADDING: In industries, we produce eggs, produce 
poultry. We produce wood furniture. We produce a lot metal 
fabrication such as lockers for state colleges, cabinetry for 
hospitals, such as that. We also have — the prison industry 
does the laundry. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: For your own institution? 

MR. MADDING: For the institution. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that true with the eggs and 
poultry as well? 

MR. MADDING: The eggs and the poultry are sold 
through the prison industries, and they go throughout the state. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What kind of customers? Who are 
your customers? 

MR. MADDING: Well, we have all of the prisons 
throughout the Department of Corrections, and other nonprofit 
making organizations can purchase. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And some of them do? 

MR. MADDING: Some do, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there a waiting list for 
various vocational and training opportunities? 

MR. MADDING: Yes, there is. We maintain waiting 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How long is that? 

MR. MADDING: Some — they vary. Sometimes just by 
the clientele and how fast our inmates turn over, because we are 
a Level II, our inmates do turn over quite fast. 


Some of the waiting lists are up to 20, but most of 
them are less than that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Twenty people? 

MR. MADDING: Twenty inmates. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's not bad at all. 

MR. MADDING: We classify actively and try to move 
people into work and training assignments quickly. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would be training, separate 
from the things you mentioned that were, I guess, more on the 
work side, the prison industries? 

MR. MADDING: Prison industries is work. It's also 
training because of the discipline. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What do you do that's training 

MR. MADDING: In training, we do education from adult 
basic education to GED. And we also have 18 vocations, which 
scan: carpentry, plumbing, upholstery, small engine repair, 
auto engine repair, auto body repair. I don't have my list with 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Your memory's doing okay. 

Is there any training area that you would think would 
be successful, there *d be an interest in, that would help people 
acquire job skills that you're not allowed to currently offer? 
If you had a wish list, is there — 

MR. MADDING: I think one of the areas that we have 
done some training is in computers, computer programming and 
work on the computer. So, I think that's excellent. 

No, I really don't. I think that we have, you know, 


when we work up potentials through the community as far as how 
we can train inmates, I think we have — we have a good vehicle 
to get that to the Director and get programs modified, because 
there is an evolution in programs. I think we're doing well. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any problem in the last year, or 
what would you regard as maybe the most difficult issue that 
you've faced in the last year? 

MR. MADDING: Probably the most difficult issue we 
faced in the last year was a simple drink of water. During the 
floods, the City of Avenal, the water source was interrupted, 
and all of a sudden we had 5600 inmates and a large contingency 
of staff who, because of roads being closed and inaccessibility, 
were basically trapped at work. 

It was an interesting logistical problem to provide 
water for our staff and inmates. We were also able to assist 
the city. We brought in water, and we actually issued styrofoam 
cups, much like the one I have here, so there would be an equal 
share to the inmates as we progressed. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you truck it in? 

MR. MADDING: We trucked it in. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How long did it shut down? 

MR. MADDING: We were on water rationing for ten 
days. The water was restored quicker, but because of the 
chemicals and the wash that had occurred by the enormous amount 
of water that came down, the potability of the water — it took 
a while for the chemicals to settle down. 

The City of Avenal worked extremely close with us, 
and we with them. It was probably — it was a major problem we 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Madding, when was Avenal, when 
did they open the doors there? How old is the prison? 

MR. MADDING: It is eight years old. 

SENATOR AYALA: The prison was designed for 3,034 
inmates . 

MR. MADDING: That's correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: Now you have 5500-plus there now. 


SENATOR AYALA: It's a low-medium security 

MR. MADDING: Yes, it is. 

SENATOR AYALA: What do you consider ideal 
population, prison population, for the prison, under ideal 

MR. MADDING: Well, ideal — 


[Laughter. ] 

MR. MADDING: Ideally, it'd be empty. 

It's hard to say what an ideal population is because 
we're trained to deal with these problems, and deal with the 
inmates as they come. 

SENATOR AYALA: It depends on the type of inmates you 
have housed there? The lower or minimum security people, you 
can probably have more of those than you would the Class IV type 
of inmates . 

MR. MADDING: Absolutely, yes, sir. 


SENATOR AYALA: That determines what would be the 
ideal population. 

It wasn't Three Strikes, You're Out deal that filled 
your prison in a hurry. In eight years now, it's almost twice 
the population of what it was designed for. 

MR. MADDING: That's correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: Jim, you're not building them fast 
enough, I guess, the prisons to keep the population down. 

MR. GOMEZ [FROM THE AUDIENCE] : As you appropriate 
them, we'll build them. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR AYALA: Sorry I asked the question. 

That's all I have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the median length of stay? 

MR. MADDING: Right now, about 2 3 months. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many would you estimate are 
less than three or four months? 

MR. MADDING: How many, normally about — for 
three-months' period, I would have to look at about 800. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That are on — 

MR. MADDING: That are on the short end. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there people who would wish to 

I guess maybe the appropriate way or best way would 
be to ask, since I think we're ready to move along, if there's 
any opposition? If not, we can probably defer people saying 
wonderful things about him; it'll just give him a fat head. 

[Laughter. ] 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Your presence is testimony to your 
commitment and interest and friendship. 

If I had a day off, I think I'd do something other 
than go to Sacramento, I'll tell you. 

Senator Lewis requested we put it on call. 

Did you want to conclude in any way? Anything that 
you heard or wanted to clarify or answer, or anything? 

MR. MADDING: No, sir. I'm fine, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: May I should have asked about 
trying to do something about drug or alcohol problems among 
convicts . 

Any thoughts about that, what you're doing, or how 
effective you may or may not be? 

MR. MADDING: We have an AA program, which I think is 
an effective program. We have an NA program. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many people participate in 

MR. MADDING: That also varies because of the 
transitory nature of the population. The last time I checked 
it, which was about a month ago, we had 135 going to AA, and 
about 70 going to NA. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anything else you need in order to 
deal with that? Do you have all the tools? 

MR. MADDING: I think we're doing fine, thank you, 


SENATOR AYALA: I'll move the confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator Ayala. 


1 Call the roll. 





SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. Senator 



SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


Let's place the matter on call so Senator Lewis can 


Good luck to you. 
MR. MADDING: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Lewis having arrived, lift 
the call and record Senator Lewis. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Five to nothing. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately 

3:27 P.M.] 

— ooOoo — 


I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

^ y< IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this 10 day of May, 1995. 

Shorthand Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.25 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 279-R when ordering. 





ROOM 113 


MONDAY, MAY 22, 1995 
1:30 P.M. 


JUN 2 7 1995 



Reported by 




ROOM 113 


MONDAY, MAY 22, 1995 
1:30 P.M. 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


Contractors' State License Board 

Contractors' State License Board 


Contractor's State License Board 

VELMA K. MONTOYA, Ph.D., Member 

The Regents of the University of California 

RALPH OCHOA, Former Member 

The Regents of the University of California 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 


Contractors ' State License Board 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

School Nickname 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Pattern in Disciplinary Matters 2 

Focus 3 

Large Number of Complaints 4 

Adequacy of Law 4 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Effectiveness of Licensing Exam 5 

Problem of Unlicensed Contractors 6 

Penalties for Unlicensed Contractors 6 

Jurisdiction to Deal with 

Unlicensed Contractors 7 

Motion to Confirm 8 

Committee Action 9 


Contractors ' State License Board 9 

Background and Experience 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Public Member's Responsibilities 11 

Satisfaction with Current Structure, 

Authority, Budget 11 


INDEX (Continued) 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Background and Preparedness to 

Be Member of Board 12 

Problem with Unlicensed Contractors 13 

Enforcement Jurisdiction 13 

Problems with Bankrupt Contractors 

Moving to New Area and Practicing 14 

Responsibility of Inspectors 15 

Questions by SENATOR BEVERLY re: 

Conservative Order of Good Guys 16 

Witness in Support: 


Contractors ' State License Board 16 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Unlicensed Contractors 18 

Motion to Confirm 20 

Committee Action 20 

VELMA K. MONTOYA, Ph.D., Member 

The Regents of the University of California 20 

Background and Experience 21 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Work at Rand Corporation 23 

White House Policy Development 24 

Work at OSHA 25 

Relevancy of U.C. to Hispanics 26 

Statement in Support by SENATOR AYALA 28 

Witness in Support: 

RALPH OCHOA, Former Regent 

University of of California 29 

Motion to Confirm 30 

INDEX (Continued) 

Committee Action 31 

Termination of Proceedings 31 

Certificate of Reporter 32 

— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We are on to gubernatorial 
appointees. Thank you for your patience, those of you who have 
waited. We begin with Mr. Barnhart, Contractors' State License 

MR. BARNHART: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It looks like you're ready to begin 
with some comments that you've prepared. If you would, go 
ahead . 

MR. BARNHART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Most of my adult life has been involved in the 
construction industry, and I've seen the industry from many 
viewpoints: first as a student in a civil engineering degree; 
as a member of the public works staff at CBC Port Hueneme; and 
as an officer in charge of site construction at NAS North 
Island, NAB Coronado, and NAF Imperial Beach; as a project 
manager and vice president of a major San Diego building and 
engineering firm; and lastly, as the owner of my own firm which 
is a major engineering, building construction management firm 
in the southern part of the state. 

I've seen the best the industry has to offer, and 
unfortunately, I've observed the need for improvement in many 

My desire is to enhance the competitiveness of our many 
California contractors who do provide safe, competent, and 
professional services, yet provide provisions to quickly and 

logically resolve consumer complaints, the vast majority of 
which involve residences of California citizens. 

I have served on the Board since August of 1994 and 
developed a great appreciation of the task at hand, and look 
forward to working with my fellow Board Members, the Registrar, 
and the Board staff to improve the California construction 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's first ask if there's anyone 
present in the audience that wishes to comment? On any of the 
appointees that's always done. Just come forward. Then see if 
Members have questions. 

Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: This has to do with his education. 
Texas Tech. 

Why does the song call you "rambling wrecks"? I 
thought Texas Tech. engineers were anything but wrecks. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. BARNHART: Senator, I think you might have us 
confused with Georgia Tech. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. BARNHART: We're the Red Riders. 

SENATOR PETRIS: All right. Well, I'll have to wait for 
somebody from Georgia, then. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: See, we get right to the serious 

Have you noticed any sort of pattern of the kinds of 
matters that appear before you for potential disciplinary 

action? Is there some trend that we ought to be fixing the law 
or something? 

MR. BARNHART: Well, there is complaint information 
that's furnished at the Board meetings. The actual complaint 
resolutions are handled primarily by staff positions and 
administrative law process on up to the Registrar. 

But the Board is maintaining statistics on what 
classifications we're getting the complaints, and in what area 
those complaints are coming from. And there is some discussion 
on the Board, or there has been since I've been on the Board 
since August of 1994, of how best to address those in more of a 
focused approach, if you will, on where the problems are 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you reached any tentative 
conclusion about what should be your focus? What kinds of 
complaints, either at the staff level or, I guess, the Board 
level? You'd wait and see if it comes up to you. You don't 
have a lot of choice about that, do you? You're kind of like 
an appellate procedure? 

MR. BARNHART: Yes, Mr. Chairman. What the Board has 
done is, they have appointed some task force that are studying 
the problem. There is currently underway a classification task 
force, particularly concentrating in the home improvement and 
what we call repair and maintenance categories, where there 
seems to be a lot of complaint activity. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thirty thousand complaints in a two- 
year period is a lot of complaints. 

MR. BARNHART: I think that's one year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, one budget year, I guess. 

MR. BARNHART: One budget year, yes, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, that's even more of a large 
number, or a shorter time. 

What's going on? Is that unlicensed activity? Is it 
bad workmanship? How do you break that down? 

MR. BARNHART: Well, there are a lot of complaints. 
Some of the complaints are valid, and some of the complaints 
are not valid. Some of the complaints, staff does resolve 
through customer service representatives, which are located in 
the district offices throughout the state. Some of the 
complaints do go through the process, and there's about, oh, 
roughly 900 of those that result in revoked license, and about 
another 900 are suspended license. Some of them — some 
actions are referred to the district attorneys in the local 
districts for criminal action, and there's — they're handled 
as to the severity of the complaint. 

But most of them, the first attempt is to resolve the 
differences between the person making the complaint and the 
involved contractor or licensee. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is the law adequate? Does the law 
need to be changed in any way to give you additional resources 
or authority? 

MR. BARNHART: I think the Board is — when the Board 
finishes this task force, we'll be able to make some 
evaluation, and we're also listening to the public. There's a 
lot of public comment, and a lot of public involvement in this 

I think when that task is done, the Board might be in a 
better position to give you the best recommendations of how to 
handle this. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In a prior life, it feels like, as a 
Member of the Assembly, I thought we had written the bill to 
fix it. I've seen about five fix-it bills in the last 15 
years, and I'm discouraged. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I keep 
hearing consumer complaints, and what seem to be slowness in 
addressing them. 

Other Members? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Yes, Mr. Barnhart, are you satisfied 
with the effectiveness of the Board's licensing exam, and does 
it produce competent contractors out there if they get through 
that exam, or do you feel it should be shored up a little bit 
to make it a little more difficult, so they know exactly what 
they're supposed to be doing? 

MR. BARNHART: I believe that there is a need for 
improvement . 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm sorry? 

MR. BARNHART: Senator, I believe there is a need for 
improvement — 

SENATOR AYALA: For improvement. 

MR. BARNHART: — in the area of the licensing area. 
And as the industry evolves, you know, we go — there's 42 
classifications. There's an A and a B classification, and then 
there's a lot of C classifications. 

We have for many years in this state had a ""one size 
fits all'' type of classification. And the exam is very 

particular on work performance, on how to actually perform the 
task at hand. But one wonders if that exam maybe should be 
expanded to include some other areas that contractors need to 
know to function in the 1990s. 

SENATOR AYALA: What about the problem of unlicensed 
contractors doing work out there? Is that really a problem we 
should look at and address? 

MR. BARNHART: There is a problem, and it normally 
follows certain trade guidelines. You're going — you see that 
in work areas that require very little capital to invest in. 
It's hard to find an unlicensed engineering contractor because 
the capital investment in the equipment is somewhat 
prohibitive, but we certainly see that — I mean, painting 
comes to mind, trades like that, plumbing. 

There is unlicensing target activities. The Board has - 
- working with the Registrar, we do have strike forces out, and 
they have been very successful in areas where we've had floods, 
and fires, and earthquakes, of going in and setting up strike 
forces. And there has been results from unlicensed activity in 
those areas. 

SENATOR AYALA: This Boards will go before the Joint 
Legislative Sunset Review Committee in "97. I guess all the 
questions that I have probably will be asked at that time. 

Are we penalizing these unlicensed contractors severely 
enough so they don't attempt to do it again? 

I don't understand the problem of some contractor going 
bankrupt and then appear in another county, doing the same work 

all over again. I don't understand the process, how that 
happens to be. 

How can it happen, when a contractor goes bankrupt and 
leaves a lot of people hanging there, but then they appear 
elsewhere with a brand new license to do business without 
taking care of the prior problems they caused? 

MR. BARNHART: I think that's a very accurate 
observation. I think that is a problem that is costing the 
California construction industry millions and millions of 
dollars of individuals who start businesses and then those 
businesses fail, and they — it seems like, in a couple of 
months, they're operating under a new business with a new 

And I know in my own business, I've encountered that 
many, many, many times. And I think there's some possibilities 
and some solutions on that that the Board should pursue. 

One of the problems with the unlicensed contractors is, 
the Board has no jurisdiction over an unlicensed person. We 
can only regulate licensed contractors. 

So, unlicensed contractors are out of arm's length, and 
they have to be referred up to the district attorney for 

SENATOR AYALA.: You only have authority to deal with 
licensed contractors, but no authority to deal with unlicensed 
contractors? Whose jurisdiction is that, to weed these people 
out who are out there doing contract work basically without a 


MR. BARNHART: It's my understanding that those cases 
are referred to the local law enforcement agencies, like the 
district attorney. And I guess the success depends on whether 
or not the district attorney's caseload is that he wants to 
take them on or not. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Department of Consumer Affairs has 
no jurisdiction over that? 

MR. BARNHART: The License Board is only licensed to 
regulate licensed contractors. 

SENATOR AYALA: I never thought about it that way, but 
not to get concerned about those who are not licensed. That's 
someone else's responsibility? 

MR. BARNHART: We have strike forces, and they identify 
those, and then they — you have to have a law enforcement 
officer with you. And the Board does, with their strike 
forces, have a law enforcement officer, and then they're turned 
over for — 

SENATOR AYALA: That's one area we've got to shore up 
before we're through here, I guess. Maybe it'll be up to that 
Joint Committee to address that issue. 

MR. BARNHART: Yes, Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? What's the 
pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, we have a motion by 
Senator Beverly. 

Would there by any objection to recording the four of us 
as voting aye? And we'll leave the roll open so that Senator 
Lewis can add on when he returns. 

[Thereupon the previous roll 
was substituted, and the 
confirmation was recommended 
with the vote of 5-0.] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck, and we appreciate your 
volunteering to do this for the state, and we hope it'll work 
and make things better for, as you mentioned at the outset, the 
licensed, legitimate contractors that don't deserve to be 
unfairly competing with those who don't follow the rules. 

MR. BARNHART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, we have Marilyn Dailey 
also as, similarly, a member of the Contractors' State License 
Board . 

Good afternoon. You, too, have been there about a year. 

MS. DAILEY: Since August, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And what are you going to tell us? 

MS. DAILEY: I have a short statement I want to read, or 
I can answer your questions. 


MS. DAILEY: My name is Marilyn Dailey, and I reside in 
Escondido, California. I've lived in California a total of 26 


My business and professional background spans over 30 
years of work in television, public relations, business 
administration, and charitable public service. 

My current position on the Contractors' Boa,rd is that of 
a public member, and I have served in that capacity since last 
August . 

I have had previous board experience as a public member 
on the Speech Language Pathology and Audiology Examining 
Committee for the State of California. 

I take very seriously my responsibility to the people of 
California in making Board decisions and have kept in mind the 
mission statement of the Department of Consumer Affairs to 
protect the consumer. Specifically, Contractors' is charged 
with promoting health and welfare of public in matters relating 
to building construction, ensuring the construction is 
performed in a safe manner, providing resolutions to disputes, 
as you've just discussed, and providing information so the 
public can make informed choices. 

And now, I've reached that stage in life when retirement 
can be either empty days of selfish pastimes, or when the 
knowledge and expertise that I've developed over the years can 
be utilized productively in public service. I believe that 
pursuing that latter course is the better alternative. 
California has been good to me and my family, and I would like 
to think that my service on the board can in some measure 
contribute as a repayment to my state. 

And I thank you for the appearance today, and I'd be 
happy to answer questions. 


I hope I do as well as Mr. Barnhart. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're doing fine. 

How do you distinguish between what responsibilities you 
may have as a public member compared to him, being a 
representative of a particular practice? 

MS. DAILEY: Well, I think that the public, of course, 
it's -the most important purchase that a family probably makes 
in their life, the most money that they'll put in is into their 
home, either through buying a home, building a home, or 
remodeling their home. And we must be very sensitive to the 
needs and their complaints. 

And a lot of times, they are unknowledgeable before they 
enter into a contract, too. So, there's a lot of negotiations, 
but the consumer is the one that is the driving force for the 
public members. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are you satisfied with the current 
structure, authority, budget? Anything you'd change? 

MS. DAILEY: Well, I think there's always changes that 
can be made and always improvements that can be made. 

I'm fairly new to the process, so there's a lot of 
things I still have yet to learn about the way — it is a large 
department. There are many people involved. 

I have seen a staff that is very dedicated. They're 
open to suggestions, which I think have been forthcoming from 
the Board. 

I think that our consumer education program, which has 
been put into place this year, where we are doing public 
service, radio and television announcements of 20, 30 and a 


minute things in our major markets, are really helping to 
educate the consumer that when they hire a contractor, he 
should be licensed. And if he isn't licensed, they are at 

And I think it helps both the consumer to know they have 
to hire a contractor that's licensed, and also all those 
renegade contractors out there that the public's going to get 
smart enough to know that they shouldn't be hiring someone 
without a license. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to ask respectfully how does 
your background, which includes a degree in speech, prepare you 
to be a member of the Contractors ' License Board? 

MS. DAILEY: Well, actually, I wouldn't put it all into 
the speech. I would put it more into the business 
administration in the past that I've had in helping run 
companies and doing different business. 

The television background was my early ten years out of 
college, and then I went into other fields. 

SENATOR AYALA: You're the public member — 


SENATOR AYALA: — on that Board. 

I would like to ask you the same question I asked the 
prior gentleman. We have a problem with unlicensed 



SENATOR AYALA: Do you think that the Board is doing 
enough to apprehend these people who are in violation of 
certainly the law? Is that your responsibility? He says not. 

What happens if they're caught? 

MS. DAILEY: Well, you're cite and fined, and then it's 
turned over to the civil courts. 


MS. DAILEY: The people who go out from our Board are 
allowed to bring charges, but they have to do it through the 

And the thing that we're hoping to do with our consumer 
education is have people not hire these unlicensed contractors, 
so that — and have people understand that if they do hire 
them, they're at risk. 

SENATOR AYALA: You said they're fined, but by whom? 
Who fines them? 

The gentleman before said that the Board was concerned 
with licensing people — 

MS. DAILEY: I believe it's civil. 

SENATOR AYALA: — and not enforce the law against those 
who are not licensed. So, who does enforcement of those? 

MS. DAILEY: It would be the civil authorities that our 
people — 

SENATOR AYALA: District attorney's office? 

MS. DAILEY: They take a law officer with them. 

SENATOR AYALA: The D.A. would have to pursue that? 




MS. DAILEY: But if you could some way, through 
legislation, help us to beef that up, that might be a good area 
to go into. 

SENATOR AYALA: The same question I asked of the 
gentleman there, we have contractors. I know for a fact two 
who have gone bankrupt, and left people hanging there. 

They end up in another area. They contract all over 

How does that happen? Doesn't the Board make sure that 
folks who haven't paid their debts in that kind of work pay 
them off before they allow them another license? 

MS. DAILEY: I'm not sure of the inner workings that I 
can answer that, the technical inner workings. 

But there is record kept of all licenses, and people can 
call in on our automated license to find out if a contractor is 
licensed. And their past history is given if they have been 
delinquent, or some how have something in their background. 

So, as I say, I'm sorry. I really don't know the 
technicalities . 

SENATOR AYALA: Because, you know, I can give you the 
name of a contractor that went bankrupt and left the person 
hanging their with their restaurant he was building, and so 
that the owner had to come up and pay the difference because 
the certificate of completion wasn't even from a registered 
company. Before they can complete the restaurant, he's out 
there practicing the same thing as a contractor in Orange 



MS. DAILEY: I don't understand how that could happen, 

2 how he could get another license — 

3 SENATOR AYALA: And I know of a painting contractor — 

4 MS. DAILEY: — but I'll find out. 

5 SENATOR AYALA: I know of a painting contractor did the 

6 same thing. He left people hanging, went to Victory, opened up 

7 offices again, and there he goes, painting homes. 

8 So, I don't understand how that works. 

9 MS. DAILEY: I don't understand how he could do that. 
10 SENATOR AYALA: It's not the responsibility of this 

Board to make sure those folks don't get a new license? 

12 MS. DAILEY: I think so. I think we'll talk to 

13 Mr. Jesswein about that immediately. 
SENATOR AYALA: We ought to review that, I think, with 

the Joint Committee next year to make sure that they're — 

MS. DAILEY: Stopped from doing it again. 

SENATOR AYALA: A lot of good folks are losing out 
because of what I call shoddy construction. There's no way to 
make them go back and redo it. That doesn't make sense. 

MS. DAILEY: Well, maybe I shouldn't say this, but I 
think maybe the inspectors should be brought to task for that, 
too. I think we found that was true with earthquakes and some 
other things. 

SENATOR AYALA: Quality control begins at the local 
governments, but when they have a subdivision, they bring their 
own inspectors, you know. That is what causes the problems 

Thank you. 





MS. DAILEY: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I've got to ask the question: for 
four years you were the Executive Director of the Conservative 
Order of Good Guys. What is that? 

MS. DAILEY: That was a political action committee that 
was founded by my husband. And I did all their administrative 
work, putting out the newsletter, setting up their meetings, 
lunches, doing their billings and the administrative duties. 

I did that on a part-time basis, and then, after his 
death, I did it as still part-time basis on a retainer basis 
for three years. 

I'm no longer involved. I am a member of the 
organization, but I'm no longer a paid — 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Did the group support Governor Wilson? 

MS. DAILEY: Yes, they did. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I'm going to test how conservative it 

MS. DAILEY: I do believe they did, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It must be a nonprofit group. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. DAILEY: I think I'll let that one pass. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any other questions? Anyone who 
wishes to comment? 

MR. FRAYNE: Mr. Chair, if I may address the Committee. 

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Jim 


Through your generosity almost eight years ago, I was 
appointed to the Contractors ' State License Board and 
reappointed in 1991. 

And since I have known Marilyn since she came on the 
Board as a public member, and I'm also a public member, I'd 
like to authenticate her interest, her dedication since she's 
been on the Board, since August, her background, her community 
activities, her professional activities, and her dedication. 

She doesn't take any sides. She calls them as she sees 
them. She's not afraid to ask questions, and she'll take on 
the big contractors as well as the little ones. 

When I came on the Board, we had complaints that hadn't 
even been opened, and the statute of limitations had ran. And 
the only computers they had were microfiche. 

Since that time, because of a lot of efforts of 
Board members and staff, the Contractors' State License Board 
has moved into the 19th Century, and hopefully, into the 21st 
Century . 

With 279,000 licensed contractors in California, and 
another 100,000 unlicensed, it's always been the attitude of 
the leadership on the Board, when you discover an unlicensed 
contractor who hasn't injured anybody, that you urge that 
person, him or her, to get a license because once they get a 
license, then we have control. 

The sad thing is, we only collect about 12 percent of 
the fines that are made. And the reason for that is, most 
unlicensed contractors, they operate from a pickup truck with a 
box of tools. And district attorneys, because of their 


workload of criminals, it's almost impossible, unless in the 
very blatant cases, to get them to prosecute that. 

And with our natural disasters, it's even worse, because 
these cockroaches have come from other states. 

Thanks to the Legislature and the Governor giving us the 
funds to have these SWAT teams, both in Northern and Southern 
California, it's enabled us to go in, like in the Northridge 
Earthquake, and set up a house, and watch the penny ads and the 
newspapers, and catch 30 or 40 of those people. 

And what happens, they sort of hang together. When they 
find out our undercover unit is in an area, suddenly they 
disappear. And like Three Strikes, they're getting the idea 
maybe California isn't a healthy place to be. 

And I urge you to reconfirm her reappointment. She's a 
dedicated person, and not only her background, but also she has 
the time. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR AYALA: Question. I didn't quite understand 
what you said about when an unlicensed contractor surfaces 
someplace, and he hasn't hurt anybody, what do you do with him? 

MR. FRAYNE: Well, when I said — I guess I should 
clarify that, Senator Ayala. 

When the damage is something that he or she can correct, 
and they will correct, and they're willing to do that, we 
encourage them to get a license so then we have jurisdiction 
over them. I didn't make that clear. That's after they 
correct whatever the problem is. 


And probably, of our 3 0,000 complaints a year, more than 
50 percent are home improvement type of things, and probably 7 
percent are under $5,000. And obviously, somebody that has a 
$1500 complaint against somebody that has a $50,000 complaint, 
the amount of money is really irrelevant because that person's 
been injured. We want to make he or she whole. That's the 
mission of the Board. 

SENATOR AYALA: I was under the impression that if 
someone is unlicensed, they're breaking the law and would come 
under your jurisdiction. But I've heard this afternoon that it 
isn't true. You only deal with those who are licensed, but not 
with those who are not licensed. 

MR. FRAYNE: I think the clarification of that is, we 
cite unlicensed contractors. And usually when we cite them, we 
don't criminally prosecute them because the district attorneys 
don't have the staff in order to prosecute them for violating 
the section. 

We fine them. What happens, we write a citation up, but 
then they disappear, maybe an assumed name. And we only 
collect about 12 percent of those fines. And then they appear 
somewhere else with a different fictitious name, and they may 
use a license number of a city permit. I mean, they're very 
clever people, very clear. 

I should say 2 or 30 percent of the complaints that we 
receive really should go to the building department, because 
they've met the standards or haven't met the standards, and 
it's not really a complaint against the contractor. But that's 
a whole other subject. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I will note that there's not a 
single environmentalist sitting on this Board. I don't know if 
we ought to try to catch a better balance. 

SENATOR AYALA: Maybe that's why it's so bad; we need a 
few in there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, do we have a motion on the 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any objection to substituting the 
roll? Okay, that'll be the order. 

[Thereupon the previous roll 
was substituted, and the 
confirmation was recommended 
with the vote of 5-0.] 


MS. DAILEY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Continue your good work and fix all 
the problems. 

MS. DAILEY: Thank you, I'll try. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The main event, Dr. Montoya, good 

DR. MONTOYA: Good afternoon. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, I have a prepared statement. 


DR. MONTOYA: It explains my background and, I think, 
speaks to my performance as a U.C. Regent. 


I am an American woman of Mexican descent from East Los 
Angeles, California. 

My late father, Jose Gutierrez Montoya, was born in 
Chihuahua, Mexico, and only had a fourth grade education. He 
came to the United States when he was about ten to escape the 
murder of his father and four brothers. Papa worked as a 
laborer for the rest of his life. 

My mother, Consuelo Cavazos Montoya, was born in Mexico 
City and also came to this country to escape the revolution 
that murdered her father. 

After my brother started school, my mother helped 
support the family as a nurse's aide at the While Memorial 
Hospital in Boyle Heights. 

I'm proud of my brother. He's a sheet metal worker at 
Hewlett-Packard in Palo Alto. Until I was twelve years old, we 
four lived in a three-room house — a combination living room, 
kitchen, and bathroom — on Geraghty Avenue in East L.A. And 
sadly, Geraghty Avenue is known for its gangs. It's not known 
for people who go on to higher education. 

I attended public high schools in East Los Angeles: 
Harrison Elementary School, Belvedere Junior High School, 
Garfield High School, and graduated from Lincoln High School, 
as did Ralph Ochoa, it turns out. 


[Laughter. ] 

DR. MONTOYA: I just learned that. 

I was the first person in my family to — in my extended 
family to graduate from high school. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Now wait a minute. You say that he 
went there, not that he graduated. 

DR. MONTOYA: Oh, well. We'll have to clarify that 

I was very fortunate. School came easy to me. I've 
always been lucky to have mainly lady mentors who have helped 
me succeed. Many of my teachers went out of their way to help 
me. At Lincoln, I won a scholarship to Occidental College. 

In high school, it never occurred to me to consider 
attending the University of California. Unfortunately, to a 
large degree, the University of California irrelevant to the 
Latino community in California. For example, last summer I 
attended scholarship awards given by Commission Femenil de Los 
Angeles, a group of educated professional ladies, Latinas. Of 
the 20 scholarships, only two were given to young Latinas who 
were attending the University of California. And when I was 
introduced, many of the professional ladies did not know who 
the U.C. Board of Regents represent. 

How does my background speak to my performance as a U.C. 
Regent? I value education, and I spend my money very 
carefully. I know a bargain when I see it. 

A U.C. education is the best education and remains a 
bargain. I want to see people from disadvantaged communities 
take advantage of this educational bargain. They and the 
students pay taxes, too. 

Thank you. I'm ready — be happy and delighted to take 
your questions. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. You have a very 
impressive resume in terms of both education and work 

DR. MONTOYA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'd like to hear you just comment on 
a few of the specific work products that you were associated 
with before we get to Regent questions. 

So, I guess kind of running somewhat chronologically, 
almost a decade at Rand? 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What kind of work were you doing? 

DR. MONTOYA: I worked in the human resources area on 
issues of labor, resources and education. 

One product I remember had to do with National Science 
Foundation funded project on mid-life career redirection. And 
it resulted in a publication that advised scientists and 
engineers to accept lower pay and consider — to downsize their 
expectations. And it looks like we're living that public 
policy issue once more with the same recommendation. That's an 
example of what I did. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any during that decade that you put 
on the controversial shelf? 

DR. MONTOYA: No, no. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: More like the one you just mentioned? 

DR. MONTOYA: I was in the domestic policy area. I also 
worked on a study using physicians assistants instead of 
doctors in military hospitals. Those kinds of — mainly 
education and labor/economics issues. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Then White House policy development. 
Any particular policy area that you were focused on? 

DR. MONTOYA: Well, I am most proud of initiating 
something that very few people know — would give me credit 
for. I worked in the Reagan-Bush administration, and when I 
got there, I learned that then-Governor Reagan had instituted a 
policy to enable absent, at that time, namely fathers to have 
the child support collected between the different counties. 
And through talking with people, I was able to initiate a 
working group that enabled this policy to go national in 1984. 

I stuck with it, and I had already left the White House 
and was working at OSHA as an economist at the time, but I'm 
very, very proud that this policy went national. 

And a lot of people don't even know. You know, in 
politics there is — people forget very quickly. 

And now, of course, it's been modified and strengthened, 
but I'm very proud of my role in initiating that. 

I also worked — at that time there was a gender — an 
alleged gender gap, so I worked on women's issues. I can 
remember when Elizabeth Dole loved my paper because it 
recommended that there be a woman member of the Cabinet. 

I also worked on Latino issues. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Wasn't the Secretary of Labor in the 

DR. MONTOYA: She wasn't there at the time. She was 
then the head of public policy. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, I mean back to the FDR days. 


DR. MONTOYA: Oh, yeah, but at that time, you know, for 
that particular administration. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Perkins, I guess. I think she was 
the first woman. 

DR. MONTOYA: Yes, Mrs. Perkins, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But at the time there was a gap, yes. 

DR. MONTOYA: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How about in OSHA? What were — 

DR. MONTOYA: In OSHA, my role was that of an economist, 
and I assessed regulations as they were being developed in 
OSHA. And I'm very proud that I'm one of the few economists I 
know who's ever worked to deregulate a standard, as opposed to 

I worked on a project to allow mechanical power presses 
to be used in this country. When OSHA was created, they 
accepted a lot of prohibitions, and one of the prohibitions was 
that mechanical power presses be prohibited. 

And what the standard now allows is that when the hand 
leaves the dye area, the press presses automatically. 

Remember, I told you my brother is a sheet metal worker 
at Hewlett-Packard in Palo Alto. Well, he was one of my 
consultants, informally, of course. But I'm very proud that he 
had input to that. 

And now, this practice is being allowed in this country. 

OSHA had allowed a factory in the Middle West, out of 
Ohio, outside of Cleveland, Ohio, to use the technology, which 
is more cost effective and more productive than the alternative 
technology. And now it is allowed to be used. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mentioned in your comments that 
the University, to a considerable extent, is irrelevant to the 
Hispanic community. 

What two or three things would you contemplate to make 
it more relevant. 

DR. MONTOYA: That's a very good question. 

One thing that the University is working on and, I 
think, will be augmented, partly as a look at what are called 
these, quote, "affirmative action" programs, unquote, are to 
augment what we call community outreach programs in the 
University of California. 

We had a representative at our meeting on Thursday of 
the California Postsecondary Education Commission. And this 
gentleman told us that in the pipeline are many students 
because of the outreach program who are taking the ADF 
requirements, and are learning about the SAT tests. So that 
now, whereas you have about four percent of Latino students in 
California who are U.C. eligible, meaning that they have the 
requirements to come to U.C, he expects that in the near 
future, this number will grow. 

By the way, that percentage could be too low because 
that's a 1990 percentage. 

And you have five percent of African-Americans who are 
similarly U.C. eligible. We expect that will grow because of 
U.C.'s emphasis on outreach programs. And a lot of people are 
participating in this. 

And one wonderful sentiment from the Regents is that we 
have to push these more, because they work. They find that 






























when students — you know, I told you that we have, like, a 
percent and a four percent eligibility rate among the 
disadvantaged population on the average. But once the students 
go into these programs, the number goes up to 50 percent 
eligibility — no, I think 50 percent who attend, not just 
eligibility, who attend. 

Our big problem there is that we lose some of the better 
students to universities and colleges like Stanford and 
Columbia that come in with all this financial aid that, right 
now, the University of California cannot offer them. That's 
one, outreach. 

Another thing we should be doing is, we should be 
getting through to the counselors, because — and the teachers. 
Most of the teachers in this state were trained at the 
California State Universities. And some how, we understand 
that that feel, for whatever reason, that — well, they are 
reluctant, some of them are reluctant, to suggest to their good 
students that they consider attending the University of 
California. They say, "Oh, the student will get lost, or 
"You won't have anyone to talk to." They don't know that 
teachers are proactive now, and are mentoring students from 
different backgrounds. 

So, we have to overcome this resistance on the part of 
the administration in high schools. 

Another thing the University of California should doing, 
I think, is training more teachers. One of my — my son is a 
teacher. Our son graduated from U.C.L.A. in history. And in 
the day time, he's a substitute teacher. And the reason he 


wants to be a sub. is so he'll have enough time to work on his 
rock music. 

So, a friend of his, a similar situation here in 
Northern California, had a hard time getting into the 
University of California Education Department to get a teacher 
training — to get a teacher's credential. And we're talking 
about a young man who graduated in science and politics from 
the University of California at San Diego, but the impression I 
get is that when he went knocking on the door at Cal. 
Berkeley's Education Department, they wanted someone who wanted 
a Ph.D. And he wants to teach. He's teaching now, but he 
wants to be validated. 

And I think we have to be more generous and open to 
young people who are willing to be trained to be teachers in 
the University of California. And I'm not quite sure how we do 
it, but I do feel this is a problem. 

We shouldn't only be planning to bring out people who 
will do research. We have to get them back into our schools. 

Those are two that I think are very important. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other Members? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: We had quite a lengthy discussion, and I 
am impressed with your background and your accomplishments. 

DR. MONTOYA: Thank you, Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm supporting you because you're fully 
qualified, not because you're of the same ethnic background I 
am, or because you happen to be a woman or affirmative action. 

DR. MONTOYA: Thank you. 


SENATOR AYALA: You're qualified, and you deserve this 
position because you're as qualified as anyone else I've seen 
come before us for that type of a position. 

So, I conqratulate you for your accomplishments, and I 
think you're doinq a heck of a job for us. Thank you. 

DR. MONTOYA: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that 
very much cominq from you. Thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Senator Petris, any questions? 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm supportinq her. She's the same 
backqround as Ayala. 

[Lauqhter . ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: Plus the merits. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Is there anybody here who wishes to 
testify in support of the nomination? Mr. Ochoa. 

MR. OCHOA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I hesitate to speak, because I miqht qet the third 

My name is Ralph Ochoa. And as some of you know, I had 
the honor and privileqe of servinq on the U.C. Board 

And I aqree with Senator Ayala, that Dr. Montoya is 
eminently qualified. 

In my experience, and havinq a chance to isolate and 
identify some of the problems that the University is workinq 
on, and should find better ways to accelerate the resolution, 
Dr. Montoya, I think, brinqs that kind of insiqht, experience, 
and will accelerate those resolutions. 

I urqe you to vote aye on her nomination. 


Thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you very much. 

Anybody else in support? Is there any opposition 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 


SENATOR BEVERLY: Senator Petris moves the Committee 
recommend confirmation. Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. Senator 


SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: We'll leave the roll open for Senator 
Lewis and the Chairman. 

Congratulations . 

DR. MONTOYA: Thank you. Thank you very much. 

[Thereupon the Rules Committee 
acted upon other items on the 
agenda . ] 

[Chairman Lockyer returned to 
Committee and questioned Dr. 
Montoya re: increasing student 
fees. Dr. Montoya expressed 
that she was resistant to any 


increase in current student fee 


Chairman Lockyer then lifted the 

call on all the confirmations, and 

the final vote on all three 

gubernatorial appointees required 

to appear was 5-0.] 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately 

3:12 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 






























I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of 
the State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

hand this 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I" have hereunto set my 


day of May, 1995. 

Shorthand Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.25 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 280-R when ordering. 





ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1995 
2:08 P.M. 


JUN 2 7 1995 






ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1995 
2:08 P.M. 

Reported by 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 











GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 



California Transportation Commission 


The Regents of the University of California 


State Building Standards Commission 


State Building Standards Commission 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 


California Transportation Commission 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Type of Money Managed in Firm 1 

Rail Cars and Deregulation 2 

Funding Shortfall in the STIP 2 

Advice for Dealing with Shortfall Problem .... 3 

Lack of Appointees' Willingness to Attempt 

to Change Governor ' s Opinion 5 

Votes Cast in Opposition to Governor's 
Recommendations 5 

SCR 72 Recommendation to Remove 

Nontransportation Departments 

from Agency 7 

More Accurate Performance Measures 

for Caltrans 7 

Contracting Out 8 

Report on High Cost of Contracting 

Out by A. Alan Post 9 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Ability of California to Meet 

Transportation Needs with Existing 

Funding Sources 12 

Use of Gas Tax as Source for 

Shoring up Deficiencies 13 

Suggestions for Funding Deficiencies 14 

Property Ownership Enhanced by Caltrans 
Purchasing 15 


INDEX (Continued) 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Improper Use of Toll Bridge Account 

to Pay for Seismic Retrofitting 16 

Mission of California Transportation 
Commission 18 

Commission's Failure to Advise 19 

Need for Commissioners to be Advocates 

for Best State Transportation Policy 20 

Opinion on Hypothetical Scenario of 
Superhighway from Eureka to Seattle 20 

Need to Reconsider Contracting Out 
Recommendation 22 

Number of Commissioners 22 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Name of Newly Appointed Commissioner 23 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Lack of Proper Balance on Commission 23 

Overall Transportation Perspectie 24 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Neglect of Duty to Confirm CTC Members 
without Resolution of Administration's 
Propensity to Put Politics ahead of 
Taxpayers ' Interests 26 

Recommendation to Put Confirmation on 

Hold until Senator Beverly's Return 26 


The Regents of the University of California 28 

Background and Experience 28 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Projections for Future Enrollment 

in Higher Education in California 29 

INDEX (Continued) 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Compliment on Independence 30 

Resolution with Respect to Selection 

of New U.C. President 30 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

May 23 Report from Center for 

Continuing Study of the California 

Economy Regarding Future Enrollment 31 

Request for Regents to Ferret Out 

Correction Information 32 

Student Fee Increases 32 

Possibility of Cutbacks without Fee 

Increases 33 

Opinion on Raising Taxes to Support 

Higher Education 34 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Major Issues Facing University 35 

Retention of Faculty 36 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Position on Affirmative Action Debate . 37 

Motion to Confirm 38 

Committee Action 39 


State Building Standards Commission 39 

Background and Experience 39 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Needed Changes in Standards Adoption 

Processes 40 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Needed Changes in Standards Adoption 

Processes 40 


INDEX (Continued) 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Contact with State Architect 41 

Need for School Districts to Go 

Through State Architect's Approval of 

Plans for New Construction 42 

Questions by SENATOR PETRI S re: 

Review of Quality of Building 

Materials 43 

Problems in District with ABS 

Plastic Pipes in Residential 

Construction 44 

Motion to Confirm 46 

Committee Action 46 


State Building Standards Commission 46 

Background and Experience 4 6 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Need to Streamline Codes 47 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Familiarity with ABS Pipe Issue 48 

Problem with Water Company Pipes 

Breaking Apart 49 

Motion to Confirm 49 

Committee Action 50 

Termination of Proceedings 50 

Certificate of Reporter 51 

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 — ooOoo — 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's start on Item 2, Dr. Berglund is 

4 first as member of the CTC. 

5 Good afternoon. 

6 DR. BERGLUND: Good afternoon. 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sometimes people want to start with a 

8 little opening statement. It's up to you as to your 

9 preference. 

10 DR. BERGLUND: Mr. Chairman, Senators, I did not come with 

11 a prepared statement. I assumed that you would be wanting to 

12 ask me questions. 

13 I could, you know, make a little statement about why I'd 

14 like the job, if you'd like, but otherwise, I didn't come with 

15 one. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, you might tell me just want kind 

17 of money do you manage in this firm? 

18 DR. BERGLUND: What kind of money I manage. I manage some 

19 family assets for — my parents were very ill. My father had 

20 Alzheimer's, and my mother had heart failure. And so, I had to 

21 manage those assets. 

22 And then I managed the assets of my husband's pension 

2 3 plan. It's not a business that's open to — you know, I don't 

24 hold myself out as a money manager to anyone else in any sense, 

25 nor have I ever given advice to anyone. I try to stay away 

26 from that. 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You seem to know a lot about rail cars. 

28 DR. BERGLUND: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: From looking at your publications, and 
lectures, and so on. 

How did you stay awake? 

DR. BERGLUND: People suggest that even the whole field of 
economics, how did I stay awake, because it's usually 
everyone's most unfavorite course in college. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I liked it, but then, I liked medieval 
history, too, so maybe there's some parallel. 

Taxi cab deregulation and rail cars? 

DR. BERGLUND: Yes, yes. I think my — you know, the 
research and all kind of covers the range of it from passenger 
to freight, and from lots of different modes. 

And I became interested in it, you know, in graduate 
school. I was taking an area in government regulation, and so 
that encompassed not only the anti-trust and that public policy 
toward competition kind of thing, and then also the regulated 
industries, public utilities and transportation. So, 
particularly on the federal level. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Perhaps you'd be willing to start with 
just any general thoughts you might share about the funding 
shortfall in the STIP. As I recall, the current is it seven- 
year plan? 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Runs out of money, I guess, during the 
next year or so. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What do you think about that? 

DR. BERGLUND: Well, I'm very concerned about it, being, 
you know, very interested in transportation at the state 

Of course, you know, I realize that this is nothing that 
the Commission will be resolving. This will be at the highest 
level between the Governor and the Legislature in dealing with 
the shortage of funds, but I think it's of a concern that the 
two of the rail bond issues have failed, and that Proposition 
1-A, to fund some of the seismic retrofit in the Northridge 
Earthquake problems has also failed. 

So, I think it's something that the Legislature will need 
to address in terms of keeping our money. I don't know if you 
would be interested in my going into any further detail about 
where the shortfall came from. You probably have those 
numbers . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's your advice about how to deal 
with the problem? 

DR. BERGLUND: Well, I would not, you know, presume to 
give any advice to the people that are, you know, in charge of 
solving it. 

I think the Commission's made a number of recommendations 
that they think the Legislature really needs to address. And I 
was on the SCR 72 Commission, and we were very interested in 
realizing some economies from Caltrans reorganization. 

I think also that the Legislature will need to address the 
fact that the funding base is declining, the fact that cars are 
becoming more fuel efficient and so the basis of the — of 
where we're getting our state highway account revenues is going 

1 to be decreasing in the future. As our congestion and as our 

2 population grows, why, we'll be in serious need of, you know, a 

3 very reliable funding source in the long run. 

4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have any thoughts about what the 

5 choices are? 

6 DR. BERGLUND: No, I haven't really examined — well, I 

7 guess I have to say, and this comes from my training in 

8 graduate school and as the first thing we learn, I guess, that 

9 old joke about you lay all the economists end to end, and 

10 they'll never reach a conclusion. 

11 And so, you know, basically I've not looked at the kinds 

12 of funding options in that way that I would want to, you know, 

13 to presume to make, you know, any sort of a recommendation. 

14 But I do think we need to look at the economies. I think 

15 we need to look at some sort of a secure revenue source, and 

16 that will not be, of course, my decision, but I certainly hope 

17 the Legislature and the administration will address it before, 

18 you know — right now, we don't have — we'll not have a state 

19 investment program in transportation. It's kind of a federal 

20 only fund because — funding, because we really need to save 

21 the state money for the federal match. 

22 And so, I would hope that we could come up with a state 

23 investment program. The blueprint is seriously — you know, I 

24 think intended to do that over the ten-year period, is in 

25 trouble because of, as I said, the measures that have not 

26 passed and other issues. 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, the practical problem seems to be 

28 the executive branch, not the Legislature, to be quite frank. 

1 I haven't seen any willingness on the part of the 

2 gubernatorial appointees to engage the Governor in requisite 

3 discussions to change his opinion. 

4 DR. BERGLUND: I didn't mean — when I was implying that 

5 you were going to solve this at the highest level, I certainly 

6 didn't mean to leave the administration out of it or blame you. 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand what you're saying. I 

8 just to make the point clear — 


10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — because I'm done apologizing and 

11 covering up for an administration that won't accept 

12 responsibility. 

13 And I think when you're appointed by him, you assume some 

14 duty to go back and try to persuade the Governor that his 

15 policies are unwise. 

16 Have you done that? 

17 DR. BERGLUND: I haven't. Well, I don't really speak with 

18 the Governor, and so I really have not done that because I 

19 don't know him personally. I mean, you know, I think we've 

20 tried to send the reports from the Commission to the Governor, 

21 to the administration, as part of our, you know, advisory 

22 responsibility. 

23 And no, I have not made an effort to contact him 

24 personally for this. 

25 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Has there been an issue in the previous 

26 year that you've served on the Commission where you cast a vote 

27 ; or expressed an opinion contrary to the Governor's Office's 

28 recommendations? 

DR. BERGLUND: I'm not certain. I can't even recall all 
the — all the votes. 

You know, so often, we don't really have that kind of — 
it's not really a policy vote. 

I understand, you know, your concern with the independence 
from the administration and that sort of thing. And I, you 
know, realize, even though I'm a Governor's appointee, that, 
you know — the CTC is the child of the Legislature. You 
created us, and you created us to be an independent body. 

And I understand that, you know, we have a number of 
independent advisory positions that we, you know, to the 
Legislature and to the administration. 

And so, as I said, I could look up in the minutes, and I 
certainly could get back to you on that. I don't recall — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our examination of the record suggests 
that you'll not find anything. But I'd be happy to be 
enlightened, if you can show me something. 

Let's talk about the SCR 72 reports, since you were a 
member of that task force. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's four or five issues that were 
raised by the group. I'd just be interested in your reaction 
and comment on each one in terms of what progress has been made 
toward implementing any of these ideas. So, if we could just 
run through those. 


1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The first was removing 

2 nontransportation related departments from the agency. 

3 Anything happen there? 

4 DR. BERGLUND: What happened, I think, was, Senator Kopp 

5 proposed a bill, and I'm not sure how far it got, or whether it 

6 was the Governor's veto that actually stopped that. 

7 But I do know that that was — 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The Governor's veto, opposed, and the 

9 agency. So, that one didn't go anywhere, I guess. 

10 How about more accurate performance measures for Caltrans? 

11 What's going on there? 

12 DR. BERGLUND: As far as I know, the Director of Caltrans 

13 made — makes, you know, reports to us, and they say, of 

14 course, that they are working on it. 

15 I think that the Commission recommended that we get kind 

16 of a point-to-point report back from Caltrans on those specific 

17 things. And as far as I know, this sort of a point-to-point 

18 definite thing, you know, have we done this, have we done that, 

19 has not been accomplished as such. 

20 But I think, maybe, that's definitely something that needs 

21 to come out of this. 

22 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This was released almost a year and a 

23 half ago. 


25 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. Has anyone come back in that year 

26 and a half and said, "Okay, here are the things that you 

27 said," and reported to you formally as a Commission on 

28 progress on those ideas? 


1 DR. BERGLUND: You mean, has anyone come back from the — 

2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: From the staff, I assume. 

3 DR. BERGLUND: — from the Department? 


5 DR. BERGLUND: Yes, yes, they have. They have come back a 

6 number of times, a number of times, and I think the Commission 

7 is always inquiring about that because we're very interested. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you recall areas where there have 

9 been some progress? 

10 DR. BERGLUND: The areas — well, I know that they're 

11 progressing in terms of trying to eliminate on the local level 

12 the work with Caltrans and some of the local groups. For 

13 example, in San Diego, MTDB and District 11 have worked out a 

14 plan such that some of the long-time, or at least the review 

15 processes that take a long time between the agencies, have been 

16 sort of streamlined, you know. That kind of thing they're 

17 trying to work on. 

18 I know there are a number of them. I'm not recalling them 

19 right now. 

20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would that be re-engineering the 

21 project delivery process? 

22 DR. BERGLUND: Yes, that's kind of what it is. And the 

23 Commission has looked at the — at the project delivery and the 

24 — you know, trying to reform some of these, and has come up 

25 with some recommendations that I think Caltrans is pursuing. 

26 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I notice with respect to the SCR 72 

27 report on one of the issues that we see regularly that's 

28 somewhat controversial: contracting out. 


2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The cost disadvantage associated with 

3 contracting out has not been proven one way or the other. 

4 DR. BERGLUND: Yes, I think that's true. SCR — or SRI, 

5 excuse me, reported back to the Steering Committee a number of 

6 times, and they looked at a number of studies on this. And 

7 they really did not come out with anything particularly 

8 conclusive on, you know, the cost of that, or whether there 

9 were cost savings or not cost savings. 

10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Now, has anyone made available to you 

11 the A. Alan Post study? 

12 Alan Post, you know, was the Legislative Analyst for a 

13 couple of decades, I think. 

14 DR. BERGLUND: No, I have not seen that, Senator. 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me just mention his conclusion, and 

16 it's worrisome that these matters wouldn't be brought to the 

17 attention of the Commission. 

18 This report came out in February of "94; that is the date, 

19 yes. He'd been Analyst for 27 years, to be correct. 

20 He concluded: "In-house services are significantly less 

21 costly. The cost difference is too substantial to be ignored 

22 because consultant salaries are 32 percent higher than those 

23 paid by Caltrans to the Caltrans engineers, and overhead and 

24 profit exceed 200 percent." Comparing 75,500 per person-year 

25 cost for a Caltrans engineer to 124,000 per person for 

26 contracts with private engineering firms. 

27 i I'm surprised, since that report was issued in February, 

28 and Board minutes from the March meeting have you, as well as 


1 the other members of the Commission, supporting the contracting 

2 out constitutional amendments. 

3 DR. BERGLUND: I think, you know, I was trying to reflect 

4 whether that report had been something that was sent to us when 

5 Mr. Baker was on the SCR 72 Committee. And he did send several 

6 things in a packet, which I did read. And I don't recall the 

7 titles of those. 

8 I think one of the things that — 

9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: ~Cost Effectiveness of Using 

10 Consultants for Highway Engineering." 

11 DR. BERGLUND: I'm not — I'm not sure whether that was 

12 with Mr. Baker's information. 

13 But I think the thing that SRI — and, of course, we 

14 didn't have an opportunity to vote on the recommendations; we 

15 merely adopted the program. But SRI was really trying to get 

16 at some certain flexibility, I think, for example, with 

17 earthquakes, that sort of thing, that perhaps the state did 

18 need some flexibility with it. 

19 And I think that's really been the Commission's position. 

20 We're very concerned about the funding, and the lack of money, 

21 and, you know, the economic impact of not having a really 

22 viable transportation system in California. And so, we're 

23 looking for all sorts of ways. 

24 And I think we would really look to something that had a 

25 little bit of flexibility in it. I think that was basically 

26 the intent, certainly. 


1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, the constitutional amendments are 

2 wide open and allow contracting out as a general matter without 

3 much constraint. 

4 It's my view that the Governor's decided to make political 

5 statements about contracting out, partly because it's popular 

6 to denigrate public employees and state civil service people, 

7 and also to reward his friends who contribute to his campaigns 

8 or share his political philosophy in the engineering world. 

9 That's my statement. I don't expect you to comment. 

10 Frankly, I view you as probably consistent with his points 

11 of view and purposes as his appointee, and the vote reflects 

12 that. 

13 \ DR. BERGLUND: Well, I'm not, you know — I feel that the 

14 first — I've been appointed by the Governor to several things. 

15 When he was the Mayor of San Diego, I was on the Energy Task 

16 Force. 

17 And I think — and particularly with the SCR 72 Steering 

18 Committee, that I was appointed because I've got good judgment, 

19 I've got a background in transportation, I've been a person of 

20 integrity, and that sort of thing. 

21 And there never really was — no person ever approached me 

22 with, you know, the question: would you always vote for the 

23 ' Governor's policies. I've just not ever encountered that. 

24 And I feel that the Governor really appointed me because I 

25 had some expertise to bring to the Commission, and I was a 

26 person of good judgment, and I intend to exercise good 

27 j judgment. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I have absolute confidence that 
that's your intention, or would be. 

And yet, you happen to be the first one along, so I don't 
mean any of this in any way to reflect on you personally. It's 
just, you're the first one that we've had from CTC to appear 
before us during a confirmation discussion. 

And the dramatic conclusion of the report, and it alarms 
me, frankly, that there hasn't been adequate discussion of what 
the Legislative Analyst, or former Analyst, concluded: that 
every single state, without exception, had higher public costs 
as a consequence of contracting out. Every single state. 

DR. BERGLUND: Well, I have not seen that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And yet, it's been ignored and, you 
know, you and others vote in March, unanimously, to support 
contracting out and amend the State Constitution. Well, it's 
not a quality of work that I find very appropriate. 

Let me ask other Members if there's any questions you see 
that you'd like to pose. Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. 

The STIP program is four and a half billion dollars short. 


SENATOR AYALA: Do you believe California can meet its 
transportation needs over the existing funding sources? 

DR. BERGLUND: No, no. That was the point that I feel 
that we need to — you know, and I think that was part of the 
Commission's recommendation, that the Legislature and the 
Governor need to look at more secure funding sources for the 


1 SENATOR AYALA: More secure? 

2 DR. BERGLUND: More secure. 

3 SENATOR AYALA: For instance? 

4 DR. BERGLUND: In terms of what I meant was that because 

5 of the fuel efficient cars, the fuel tax revenues are — you 

6 know, that we're getting for the state highway account are 

7 declining, and so that means that even though we have more 

8 vehicle miles traveled in the future, that we're going to get 

9 less revenue from it. 

10 And so, of course, this is not the responsibility of the 

11 Commission to, you know, kind of presume on this sort of public 

12 policy prescriptions. 

13 And I have really not looked at the individual funding 

14 ' sources. I've read the list that I think was in the 

15 Calif ornians for Better Transportation, and the list that the 

16 Commission report to the Legislature stated, but I've really 

17 ! not looked at them enough that I would want to, you know, 

18 presume to make a comment about that. 

19 SENATOR AYALA: The voters turned down the last two bond 

20 issues — 

21 DR. BERGLUND: Right. 

22 SENATOR AYALA: — dealing with transportation. Do you 

23 have any problem with a gasoline sales tax as a source to try 

24 to shore up our deficiencies? 

25 DR. BERGLUND: Because we're — you know, we currently 

26 have a gas tax, you know, as a basic source of it. I think it 

27 would — I would think it would really need to be looked at, 

28 because I think that's what I was saying, is that using it is 


1 — you know, we need to look at it; see if it's going to hold 

2 us in the future. 

3 SENATOR AYALA: But the people have turned down the bond 

4 issues. 

5 DR. BERGLUND: Yes, and I think that — 

6 SENATOR AYALA: What else is there? And yet, our need is 

7 there for everyone to take a look at, four and a half billion 

8 dollars in the hole. I mean, where are we going to go from 

9 here? 

10 DR. BERGLUND: Well, there ' re a number of, you know, the 

11 alternatives, as I said. And, you know, I particularly have 

12 not looked at them individually so that I really feel that I 

13 could make a recommendation. I haven't looked at the pros and 

14 cons. 

15 As I said, you know, I was sort of trained, and my 

16 research tells me, experience, that when I don't know 

17 something, I don't like to make a, you know — 

18 SENATOR AYALA: But the deficiency's been there for a 

19 while now. 

20 DR. BERGLUND: It has — it has been there for a while. 

21 And I think that — 

22 SENATOR AYALA: Have you given any thought to how we can 

23 recoup ourselves to be able to fund these deficiencies? 

24 DR. BERGLUND: Well, I think some of those alternatives 

25 will definitely need to be, you know, taken up. 

26 But as I was saying, I think, you know, these are the 

27 higher levels of policy that the Commission is not really 

28 participating in, and so — 


1 SENATOR AYALA: You have no suggestions as to how we can 

2 enhance our resources to take care of our needs in 

3 transportation in California? 

4 DR. BERGLUND: As I said, there's whole list of — 

5 SENATOR AYALA: And in that whole list, you have not one 

6 that you feel is probably the most desirable? 

7 DR. BERGLUND: There are — there are some, and I think 

8 the pros and cons are depending upon whether they're 

9 politically acceptable, whether they're, let's see, an 

10 increasing revenue source, that sort of thing. Whether — 

11 let's see. 

12 I was trying to think of the other criteria that were — 

13 have been used to evaluate those. And I know those in the 

14 Californians for Better Transportation had a nice little matrix 

15 about pros and cons of the various alternatives. I could get 

16 back to you on that, but, you know, right now, I really — 

17 SENATOR AYALA: I would like — 

18 DR. BERGLUND: — really would not make a specific choice. 

19 SENATOR AYALA: — I'd like to see that. 

20 For now, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

21 One more question. Do you or your family, or your 

22 corporation, or individually, own any property that might be 

23 enhanced by Caltrans purchasing? Either lose value or enhance 

24 the value? 

25 DR. BERGLUND: No, Senator. That is one thing that I 

2 6 think is in definite favor, because right now, our corporation, 

27 which is called the J. Berglund Company, and that's what 


1 Chairman Lockyer was asking me about, you know, what funds do I 

2 manage. 

3 And we don't even — the J. Berglund Company doesn't 

4 actually own any property. We just own our house, and I have 

5 an office in my house there. And so, that's the only property 

6 we own in the State of California. 

7 SENATOR AY ALA: Thank you. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris. 

9 SENATOR PETRIS: You're in a situation that covers a lot 

10 of territory, so we're coming at you from different angles. 

11 I'm interested in the toll bridge money, the use of toll 

12 bridges, most of which are up north, to be applied — the tolls 

13 themselves being applied — to seismic retrofitting, which is 

14 not the proper use of those tolls in other bridges. 

15 And we have a feeling, where most of these bridges are, 

16 where most of the tolls are paid, that that money is being 

17 ; misapplied for a good purpose. You know, the purpose is to 

18 retrofit bridges and protect them for seismic safety, but that 

19 normally comes out of the fuel tax. 

20 We feel there's a drain on funds up here, meaning the 

21 northern part of the state, generally, although there's one or 

22 two down south, but most of them are up here in the Bay Area, 

23 for the wrong purpose. And that work is supposed to be 

24 financed out of the fuel tax. 

25 Do you have any comment on that as a member of the 

26 Commission? 

27 DR. BERGLUND: Yes. I — while I realize, Senator, that 

28 that's — you know, that is probably the most delicate issue 


1 facing the budget discussions that will be — you know, being 

2 held this summer, and I think that's why the Commission has not 

3 really taken a position on it. 

4 Senator Kopp came to one of the meetings, and I think we 

5 felt that this was another one of those fiscal matters that was 

6 going to be solved, you know, it's going to be hassled out in 

7 the political arena, not in the Commission arena. And that we 

8 would be presumptuous to make judgment on that. 

9 I know there are — I have read the letter that — I think 

10 your name was on the letter that was sent — I don't know to 

11 whom it was addressed. 

12 SENATOR PETRIS: The Governor. 

13 DR. BERGLUND: Yes, to the Governor, yes. 

14 And I have read that, and I understand that there are 

15 positions on both sides of that issue. And I think that's 

16 because it was so sensitive. 

17 I think that's why the Commission and, you know, myself 

18 would not want to comment on that, because I think it's 

19 something that the Legislature and the administration are going 

20 to have to iron out for the budget. 

21 SENATOR PETRIS: Wouldn't that come under your advisory 

22 capacity? 

23 DR. BERGLUND: I did come under — I think it did come 

24 under the advisory capacity. I think the CTC is sort of — 

25 it's a toll bridge authority in a sense, and that was one 

26 reason that we did not pass a — I think that is up for — I 

27 wouldn't call it reauthorization. I don't know a lot about the 

28 political terms here. 


1 But I do know that a toll bridge, whatever report, could 

2 have been adopted in "94, in December, I think, by the 

3 Commission. And they chose not to do that just because of the 

4 sensitivity of this issue, and that they did not want to 

5 become, you know, pre- judge that issue in any sense because it 

6 was not in their area of responsibility to do. 

7 And so, they have really — the Commission nor myself, as 

8 an individual Commissioner, has really not made, you know, a 

9 statement or taken a position on that because of the both sides 

10 of it and the legislative impacts of it. 

11 SENATOR PETRIS: It shows you how brave we are in 

12 politics. 

13 DR. BERGLUND: You are, definitely. 

14 SENATOR PETRIS: We jump in there, and we make the 

15 decisions. 

16 DR. BERGLUND: Yes. 

17 SENATOR PETRIS: And we get a lot of flak for it, but 

18 that's why we're there. 

19 What is the mission of the CTC? 

20 DR. BERGLUND: Well, the CTC is — has basically a mission 

21 to an advisory role. And we adopt the State Transportation 

22 Improvement Program, and then submit it to the Legislature. 

23 And so — 

24 SENATOR PETRIS: To whom are you supposed to give advice? 

25 To the Legislature, to the Governor? 

26 DR. BERGLUND: I think it's an advisory — I think. we have 

27 a statutory requirement to advise the Legislature and to the 

28 administration also. 


SENATOR PETRIS: But you haven't taken, you as a board, 
have not given any advice. 

DR. BERGLUND: We have not given any advice as far as I 
know. There might have been some, you know, prior to when I 
came on the Commission in some documents that I have not read. 

But as far as I know, the Commission has not wanted to 
take a position on this. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, that's interesting. 

You know, it's not an agricultural board. It's a 
transportation board. And it seems to me that we're looking to 
you for some advice. We may not accept it all, but that 
Commission is supposed to be well-informed and have a statewide 
view of the whole transportation system, including whether or 
not we should go to more and more rail passenger service, for 

It makes it kind of a desert if we don't get some input 
from a commission that's supposed to be advising us. 

Now, you're going to get a lot of issues that are 
sensitive, where you have heated opinions on both sides. 

I hope you're not telling us that any time something gets 
hot, you're going to run away from it? 

DR. BERGLUND: No, no, and I understand your frustration. 

I didn't really mean to imply that I didn't have any 
opinions, but I guess maybe what I didn't make very clear was 
the fact that because of my research experience, we're supposed 
— I, you know, personally — this is personally, not the 
Commission — but, you know, we were trained as a social 


And when I do my research, you know, I don't make 
opinions, you know. I look at the sort of empirical results of 
my study. And we were sort of taught not presume that, you 
know, our results were necessarily applicable in all instances. 

So, that's why my personal opinions, you know, I try to 
keep out of things, except when I, you know — 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're not an umpire in that job, you 
see. You're an advocate, it seems to me, for the best state 
policy affecting transportation. Isn't that true? 

DR. BERGLUND: That — we would be — well, I don't know 
whether an advocate, perhaps, might imply that — that I was, 
you know, in a sense, lobbying, which I don't think is a 
Commission function. 

But I definitely — this is why I would like to have this 
job, and I really enjoyed it over the last year, is because I 
feel California does need a first-rate transportation system. 

And as an economist, that's one reason I think I got very 
interested in transportation, was because it was really 
critical to economic vitality. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, suppose the Commission came up with 
the notion — or not the Commission, but people who do that, 
Caltrans, to build a super highway from Eureka to Seattle, the 
California portion being the smallest. 

Wouldn't you people do something about that? At least 
express your opinions? 

DR. BERGLUND: I'm sure we, perhaps, would. We have a 
wonderful staff, and they analyze the information very well. 
And I'm sure we probably would, but I guess what I'm saying — 


SENATOR PETRIS: How does it sound to you, just off the 
top of your head? 

DR. BERGLUND: Well, this is what I'm sort of trying to 
get across, is that the hypothetical issues, I don't know, are 
particularly relevant to what I'm doing as a Commissioner. And 
so, I would have to look at it. 

You know, as an economist, I'm looking at both sides. And 
as they say, you know, I'm always — my husband criticizes me 
because he's saying I'm also, he's saying, you — it depends. 
Everything depends. I have to look at both sides of this. 

So, that's why, you know, typically I don't come out with 
a view. 

SENATOR PETRIS: One side says, ""We're going to run this 
super highway up to Seattle." 

The other side says, ""We don't want to pay anything 
beyond the California border. What do you mean you're going to 
run a highway up to Seattle?" 

That's pretty simple. What are the other sides to worry 

DR. BERGLUND: Actually, I think, you know, one of the 
studies that I participated in when I was at U.C. Irvine was 
the kind of looking at the alternatives in a corridor, and, you 
know, developing the criteria that we would look at them for. 

And of course, economists are always concerned with costs, 
and, you know, I'd never make a statement until I've looked at 
all the, you know, kind of a cost benefit. Not necessarily a 
formal one, but at least — 


SENATOR PETRIS: Well, the Chair brought out the cost 
comparison in his questioning, comparing the state in-house 
personnel building highways as opposed to contracting out to 
private consultants, and so forth. Enormous difference in 
cost: 75,000 per person in one, and 124,000 in the other. 

That didn't seem to excite your interest too much. That's 
a cost thing that the economists look at; isn't it? 

DR. BERGLUND: Yes, yes, it is. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you want to reconsider your opinion, 
or. lack thereof, on that issue? 

DR. BERGLUND: I would like to see the studies. 

One thing I do say when I on the Steering Committee of SCR 
72 is that we took what SRI said to us, and I assume that they 
looked at these studies, but I really don't — I really do not 
know if they looked at these studies. And they said that there 
were a number of them, and you know, they evaluated them 
themselves, and we never saw them. 

And of course, I think the costs, that definitely always 
excites an economist's interest. I think they like to have 
their own judgment of the kinds of costs that were included, 
because it's a real serious thing to do a cost benefit 
analysis. There's many, many costs, both tangible and 
intangible, that need to be included in that kind of thing. 

And some of them involve subjective evaluation, I think, 
when people are doing these studies. And so, oftentimes, we 
don't always take other people's costs. I mean, we like to 
look into it, or like to read the report at least. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How many Commissioners are there? 


DR. BERGLUND: There are nine, and there are seven 
currently. And I think we have a new appointee today. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who is it, this new appointee? 

DR. BERGLUND: From the PUC. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Oh, one of their Commissioners? 

DR. BERGLUND: One of their Commission who's, you know — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Which one, do you recall? 

DR. BERGLUND: Conlon. 

Perhaps this was something I was not to announce. This 
was something that — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We don't tell. 

DR. BERGLUND: Well, I'm sorry. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Some of us have the feeling that the 
Commission is overloaded with developers, and real estate 
developers, and so forth, contractors. 

It doesn't seem to be a proper balance there. For 
example, we've had former Commissioner Handley, who was big in 
gravel and asphalt, the essence of highway materials. And 
Mr.Nestande, a former colleague of ours over in the Assembly, 
vice president of a development company. Mr. Hawthorne, the 
leading road builder and equipment dealer in all of San Diego 
County, one of our biggest counties. 

And then on the current board, we have Mr. Duff ell, who is 
a major office building, hotel, and residential developer, and 
Mr. Shelton, a former planner for the Irvine Company. 

So, somebody who makes these appointments seems to feel 
that we need a lot of these kinds of folks on the 
Transportation Commission. 


I don't know if you want to comment on that. It seems to 
be out of balance to me. 

DR. BERGLUND: Well, I could not — I don't recall when 
the other Commissioners were appointed. And I really wouldn't 
make a comment, you know, concerning the balance. 

That was one thing that I was hoping would be in my favor, 
was that I didn't own any land, and I wasn't a developer. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I think it is. I think it is in 
your favor. 

DR. BERGLUND: And I don't know the new appointee and his 
background , e ither . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Does the Commission concern itself at all 
with the overall transportation perspective from the standpoint 
of having balance there as well? I mentioned railroad, new 
developments that are coming along in high speed real, trying 
to induce more and more people to get out of their cars and get 
into the public transportation. 

We've been complaining for years, I've been one of the 
leading critics, but we haven't provided the alternative, you 
know. We say to the motorist, we're all motorists, and we're 
all pretty much committed and devoted to the automobile. It's 
so convenient. 

But it's a source of a lot of problems, health being one 
of the first that I'm interested in. Pollution caused by the 
automobile has shortened a lot of lives of people in our state. 
Seniors are still having trouble with air pollution in the L.A. 
Basin and other places. The Bay Area, too. 


And as a result, some of us have advocated more rail 
transportation . 

Does the Commission concern itself at all with that . 
problem? Or, are you waiting for someone to drop a specific 
plan on you? 

DR. BERGLUND: Well, I think that, you know, of course, 
because I'm new, I basically looked at the — all the items 
that were in the Transportation Blueprint, passed in 1989. Of 
course, we had the three rail bonds which were expected to do 
that kind of thing. We had the flexible congestion relief 
program. We have the Proposition 116, which is the Clean Air 
and Transportation Improvement Act that I think the Commission 
is definitely trying to — you know, we oversee some of that. 
I mean, I think we were in an advisory capacity. 

But I think there seems to be a general feeling on the 
Commission, as obviously in the state, and the Legislature that 
was responsible for passing the Blueprint legislation, that 
these items needed to be looked at to provide good 
transportation in California, and one that was compatible with 
the other public policy goals, such as, you know, the 
environmental concerns and safety, too. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'll ask if there's any other testimony 
at all? I don't believe there is, but if there's anyone 
present who would wish to comment, now is the time to come 

Senator Beverly, the Vice Chair, is unable to be with us 
today. I had indicated to him that if there were potential 


1 problems, that I would defer and give him an opportunity to be 

2 engaged. 

3 Dr. Berglund, I have nothing but respect and admiration 

4 for your academic and personal achievements and career. 

5 As I had mentioned earlier, you are kind of the first one 

6 along in some time, and so I have not yet had an opportunity to 

7 inform the Governor's Office that, at least my personal view, 

8 is that we would be neglecting our duty if we confirm 

9 additional members to the CTC, and there are two or three we're 

10 going to be seeing in the near future, without some resolution 

11 of the propensity of the administration to put politics ahead 

12 of taxpayers' interests. 

13 And that's reflected in your vote, I'm sorry to say, as 

14 well as every one of your colleagues on the Commission. And I 

15 think it probably is our task to indicate when we think there's 

16 a problem. 

17 So, what I'm going to suggest today is that we just put it 

18 all on hold and not take any action that would be unduly 

19 precipitous, but to engage in some more discussion of these 

20 matters. 

21 DR. BERGLUND: Is this — I was curious to know what the 

22 standing is on the — you know, my 12 -month confirmation. 

23 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The 21st. The clock runs on the 21st. 

24 DR. BERGLUND: Will we be having another subseguent 

25 hearing? 

26 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I hope so. Senator Beverly isn't with 

27 us, I believe, due to some surgery, but I expect him to return 


1 in a time that would be sufficient for focus and getting back 

2 to the matter. 

3 So, one way or the other, if he can't, we'll have to go 

4 forward anyhow, because it's not fair to just let the clock 

5 run. 

6 DR. BERGLUND: That's what I was a little concerned about. 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, I understand. 

8 We have no intention to just let the sand fall through the 

9 hour glass. 

10 But I do want to be forthright with you, as you have been 

11 with us — 

12 DR. BERGLUND: I appreciate that. 

13 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — in suggesting that this is an area 

14 in which I think there is substantial and significant 

15 disagreement in philosophy and approach between most of the 

16 members of this Committee and the CTC and the administration. 

17 [ And it's probably an issue we just have to bring to a head. 

18 DR. BERGLUND: All right, thank you. 

19 I must tell you, I'm disappointed, because I enjoy the 

20 job, and I would certainly like to continue. 

21 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We haven't taken a vote. 

22 DR. BERGLUND: All right. Well, it's never over "til it's 
2 3 over . 

24 Thank you. I appreciate your consideration. 

25 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Dr. Berglund. 

26 Mr. Sayles, do you want to come up today, or do you want 

27 to wait? 

28 [Laughter.] 


1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you want to begin with any 


3 MR. SAYLES: If I may, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

4 Committee, I'm Tom Sayles. If you'll indulge me for a second, 

5 I'll tell you a little about my background. 

6 I was born and raised in Los Angeles, South Central Los 

7 Angeles, to be specific. I was educated in Los Angeles's 

8 public schools. 

9 My undergraduate degree is from Stanford, which I hope 

10 doesn't disqualify me for consideration as a member of the 

11 Board of Regents. My law degree is from Harvard. I did spend 

12 time, however, at the U.C.L.A. Graduate School of Management. 

13 In terms of my professional career, I have worked as a 

14 lawyer both in the public and private sector. I've had the 

15 privilege to serve in government in a couple positions. 

16 I am most proud of the work I did as a member of the 

17 Community College Board of Governors. That gave me exposure to 

18 California's public education system, which I greatly admire. 

19 I am married to a public school teacher in the Los Angeles 

20 Unified District. We're both very concerned about public 

21 education. 

22 In terms of personal experience, I can tell you that the 

23 difference in my life clearly has been the education I was 

24 afforded, and I would hope that, based on my experience, both 

25 professional and personal, I can bring value to the Board of 

26 Regents. 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for a complete but concise 

28 statement. 


1 Questions from any Members? Senator Petris. 

2 SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

3 As a Member of the Budget Committee that deals with 

4 education, including higher ed. , I've been concerned about the 

5 twists and turns we've had in the projections for future 

6 enrollment in higher ed. They've talked about Tidal Wave I, 

7 and then Tidal Wave II, and the projections for the end of the 

8 Century and maybe 2002 have gone up to 500,000. And recently, 

9 the Finance Department has dropped it. 

10 It makes me very nervous about what they're trying to do. 

11 It doesn't seem to be based on any scientific demographic 

12 studies when they can be arbitrarily chopped down by the 

13 Finance Department. We've had no explanation. 

14 There's an editorial in one of the newspapers recently, 

15 asking about the missing 67,000. That was one of the drops. 

16 Can you enlighten us on that? What's going on here? 

17 MR. SAYLES: Senator, I'm trying to find out the same 

18 question. I don't know the answer to that. I raised the same 

19 — I will raise the same concerns. 

20 We need to understand what those numbers are. 

21 And candidly, one of the things I hope I would bring to 

22 the Regents is, I'm going to ask those hard questions. Things 

23 I don't understand, I'm going to ask be explained to me. 

24 And that is a rather precipitous drop. I understand it is 

25 based upon projections put forth, demographic information 
2 6 provided by the Department of Finance. 

27 I view my obligation is getting to the bottom of that and 

28 trying to understand, because it's clearly — I mean, our 


1 planning is going to be predicated upon those enrollment 

2 projections. We cannot carry out our role unless we understand 

3 those numbers. 

4 I wish I could tell you I knew what the right numbers are, 

5 but I don't know that. 

6 But I can tell you, I will try to find out what the right 

7 numbers are, and I have to do that to do my job, if I am 

8 confirmed. 

9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In terms of your independence, I want 

10 to make note of things I read in the newspaper where, I hope 

11 you were accurately quoted, saying, "I can tell you now, under 

12 no circumstance will I vote for a candidate," in this instance 

13 for President of U.C., "where I only have one choice." 

14 I compliment you for your willingness to be independent, 

15 both of bullies on the Board as well as people, bureaucrats, 

16 that might shape decisions in a way that, in effect, make you 

17 ineffective. I'm glad you're outspoken. 

18 It's really the only time, you probably heard, we did, one 

19 time, turn down a Regent appointee, and it was just because we 

20 thought there was insufficient independence, just to make his 

21 or her own mind up and speak up. 

22 So, please accept compliments from one for your 

23 willingness to be forthright about these things. 

24 I guess there's nothing been resolved with respect to that 

25 process. 

26 MR. SAYLES: No. It's still — just to put it in 

27 perspective, my view is, probably the most important thing we 


1 could do as Regents is select the next leader of this 

2 University. 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're right. 

4 MR. SAYLES: And I was concerned with just one choice. 

5 I've been involved in many, many selection committees. 

6 And typically, there are at least a couple of choices so you 

7 have an idea of what's available, who's interested in the job. 

8 It has not been resolved. I am told that a 

9 recommendation, probably of a single individual, will be coming 

10 to the Board sometime in either June or July. That's the best 

11 of my understanding. 

12 I actually know more from reading the newspapers than I do 

13 from any other source. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator, please continue. 


16 After all these projections that I talked about, we have 

17 an article here, May 23rd, quoting the Center for Continuing 

18 Study of the California Economy, which projects big increases 

19 again. They're concentrated on ages 5-17, and are measuring 

20 the impact on K-12.. But, of course, that's going to have a 

21 whopping impact higher up if this is accurate and proves out. 

22 Are you familiar with that? Has that been brought to your 

23 attention? 

24 MR. SAYLES: No, I'm not aware of that study. 

25 SENATOR PETRIS: I would suggest you might want to have 

26 your staff people check it out. It's the Center for Continuing 

27 Study of the California Economy. 


1 I now the Regents don't vote these figures. I'm asking 

2 you in your capacity as a Regent so that you can help, with all 

3 the vast resources available at the University, hopefully, to 

4 ferret out all the correct information. 

5 I know these studies don't come from U.C., either. One is 

6 Department of Finance, which always has a problem of being 

7 tainted with political considerations, regardless of which 

8 administration is running the show. And the other is an 

9 independent outside group, which, in this atmosphere, would 

10 tend to have more credibility. 

11 I would hope you could dig into that and see what you can 

12 find out. I think it'd be helpful to us as well as you. 

13 MR. SAYLES: I will, Senator. 

14 SENATOR PETRIS: I've been concerned also about fee 

15 increases, student fees, which I always call student taxes. 

16 I don't know if you've been there long enough to vote on 

17 any of those, but I would like to get your attitude on the last 

18 three or four years, especially, tremendous increase in student 

19 fees. 

20 If you look at the overall higher ed. system, we've lost 

21 200,000 students since 1990, which those who study these things 

22 attribute mostly to the increases in fees. They can't be 

23 positive, of course, 100 percent, but that seems to be the 

24 indication. And if we keep this up, it's going to shrink even 

25 further. 

26 MR. SAYLES: Senator, generally, one of my real concerns 

27 is what these fee increases is doing to middle income families. 

28 Specifically, I have voted against and did vote against 


1 differential fees for graduate students, primarily because of 

2 my concern about what that would do for access to, again, 

3 middle class students. And there was not, in my view, a 

4 sufficient showing that there would not be an adverse impact 

5 upon those middle income students that I'm concerned about. 

6 I am generally opposed to fee increases. I am, at this 

7 point, not convinced that the University has done all it can do 

8 to avoid fee increases. 

9 I would, by the way, applaud the Senate on its budget 

10 proposal to add $38 million for those purposes. I would work 

11 with you to encourage the Governor to adopt that proposal. 

12 I see first-hand what fee increases are doing to students, 

13 and I think it's something we have to think long and hard about 

14 before we support — or, before I would support fee increases. 

15 And I would be candid and say, it is unlikely, until there 

16 was a higher showing made, that I would support increases. 

17 SENATOR PETRIS: How would you answer the response that, 

18 "Well, if we don't have the fee increases, we're going to have 

19 to cut back, and admit less students, and let faculty go, and 

20 so forth?" 

21 MR. SAYLES: Well, I think that's the argument that's 

22 going to be put forth. I mean, I work in a company where we've 

23 gone through downsizing. 

24 But I think we also have to look at the efficiency of the 

25 institution. Now, I'm not an expect on the University of 

26 California, but my sense is that if we looked hard, there may 

27 be additional efficiencies we can gain without reducing staff. 


1 I don't know the answer to that, but that's my sense of 

2 it, because I've seen the kind of changes that major companies 

3 have done. Sometimes you have to reduce staff, other times you 

4 don't. It's just by working smarter. 

5 I don't know if we've done those things. 

6 Again, it's one of the concerns I have about the next 

7 President. I want someone who can bring that kind of 

8 leadership to the University; who can not only handle the 

9 academic aspect, but the fiscal questions that I think will 

10 dominate the University for the next several years. 

11 SENATOR PETRIS: Well, part of the fiscal question is 

12 whether or not they have enough money. And we can only expect 

13 the University to downsize up to a certain degree. After that, 

14 they're going to be hurting. They've been hurting. 

15 There isn't enough talk about providing more money to the 

16 University, because where does it come from? It comes from the 

17 people in the form of taxes, and there aren't too many of us 

18 willing to talk about that. 

19 I, for one, would like to see us bring in more money for 

20 all three levels of higher education: community colleges as 

21 well as U.C. 

22 Are you totally adverse to that as a policy? 

23 MR. SAYLES: No. I think we have to look at all our 

24 options. No. 

25 SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

26 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 


1 SENATOR AYALA: I think that both Senators have preempted 

2 me on the questions I was going to ask you, but there's one 

3 more question. 

4 What do you think is the major policy facing the 

5 University of California and the Regents at this time? 

6 MR. SAYLES: What I think is the major policy issue? 

7 | SENATOR AYALA: Major policy issue, and don't tell me 

8 financial because we know that. 

9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That may be it, though. 

10 SENATOR AYALA: That's not a policy. 

11 MR. SAYLES: Well, Senator, I think I beg to differ. 

12 I think the fiscal issues have rather significant policy 

13 implications. 


15 MR. SAYLES: And I don't think we can ignore those. 

16 My sense is that how we manage the issue of the lack of 

17 i resources, coupled with tuition fee increases, is probably the 

18 most important issue facing the University system, because it 

19 goes to the core of our commitment to the top twelve and a half 

20 percent students in this state, and it goes to our ability to 

21 finance the education of people who have historically used the 

22 University to increase or improve their station in life. 

23 So, I think that fiscal issue is the one that I'm most 

24 concerned about. And it is why I asked to be a member of the 

25 Finance Committee. 

26 SENATOR AYALA: True. Without financial assistance, you 

27 can't implement any program. Without financial assistance, 

28 you're at sea when implementing some programs. 


1 But what would be your second-most serious policy issue 

2 you're facing? 

3 MR. SAYLES: I think probably the retention of faculty. 

4 One of the arguments I've heard — and again, I'm not an expert 

5 on this — is that we are losing some of our young faculty 

6 members for a variety of reasons. 

7 I would certainly want to better understand what we an do 

8 to attract and retain those students. 

9 Some people don't seem to be concerned, but we're in a 

10 competitive position. We are competing with the University of 

11 Texas, and North Carolina, as well as private schools, not so 

12 much for our tenured senior professors, but for those young, 

13 bright folks that, I think, build the system. And how we 

14 handle those young professors, I think, will be key to the 

15 future of this system. 

16 SENATOR AYALA: I agree that the senior members of the 

17 faculty have the experience and can move onto other 

18 universities. But you have some new crop coming up that could 

19 take their place, and if you're losing those, you're in deep 
2 trouble. 

21 MR. SAYLES: Yes, yes. And we are, and I think we are. 

22 That's at least what I'm led to believe. We are losing them. 

23 SENATOR AYALA: What's the major reason for them leaving? 

24 MR. SAYLES: I think it ' s a variety. 

25 SENATOR AYALA: Financial? 

2 6 MR. SAYLES: I think that's part of it. Depending on 

27 which campus they're talking about, the cost of buying a house, 

28 the quality of education. I have small children, the kind of 


1 education they could office their students, depending on where 

2 they're living. The normal things that young families have to 

3 address . 

4 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

5 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If we could, let's take a moment on the 

6 affirmative action debate that's current before U.C. 

7 Regent Connerly has expressed a different opinion or 

8 approach than, let's say, President Peltason or Chancellor 

9 Young . 

10 What's your own analysis? Where do you find yourself in 

11 this debate? 

12 MR. SAYLES: My initial reaction is that so much of this 

13 discussion has been based on anecdotal information rather than 

14 the facts. 

15 So I guess my first reaction is, all of us, where ever you 

16 end up on this issue, we need to get the facts out. And I 

17 don't think those facts are out right now. 

18 I don't think there's anything, quote, "before the 

19 Regents" to decide right now, other than one Regent's opinion. 

20 What I've been trying to do — I mean, I have a 

21 predisposition, and that predisposition is that we need 

22 diversity in the University system. But what I've tried to do, 

23 and the approach I've taken, is try to listen to the facts. 

24 I think all programs need to be looked at, including 

25 affirmative action, to make sure it's accomplishing what it was 

26 set out; that there are not inappropriate abuses in the system. 


1 But I will tell you that in my personal opinion, there 

2 continues to be — this is not a color-blind society. And 

3 under certain circumstances, we need to address that issue. 

4 I'm not at the point now where I believe the abuses I've 

5 heard about are enough to throw out the entire system. 

6 But again, I think we have to look at it, massage it, and 

7 make sure it is doing what we expect it to do. 


9 Is there anyone present who would wish to make any 

10 comment? 

11 What's the pleasure of the Committee? 


13 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion to recommend 

14 confirmation to the Floor. 

15 Why don't you call the roll on that. 

16 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


18 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. Senator 

19 Petris. 


21 SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. Senator 

22 Lockyer. 


24 SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. 

25 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's leave the matter on call so that 

26 Senator Lewis, at least when he returns, can add his vote. 

27 Thank you, and good luck to you. 

28 MR. SAYLES: Thank you. 


1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Very impressive. 

2 MR. SAYLES: Thank you. 

3 [Thereupon, Senator Lewis later 

4 returned to Committee and voted 

5 in favor of the confirmation, making 

6 the final vote 4-0.] 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Ward is next for State Building 

8 Standards, Item Number 3, Members. 

9 Do you want to start with any comment at all? 

10 MR. WARD: Well, thank you very much for spending the time 

11 to hear someone from the Building Standards Commission. The 

12 first time I was appointed, I didn't have the opportunity, but 

13 I certainly appreciate your time and the opportunity now. 

14 I'm an architect in private practice for the last 17 years 

15 with my own firm, and with other firms for 26 years. 

16 I've served with the AIA California Council, as well as 

17 the Architects Institute in Washington, D.C. In California, I 

18 was Chair of the Building Standards Committee that we had, 

19 which is the Building Codes Committee, for nine years. Part of 

20 the work that we did turned out to be something that I'm very 

21 proud of seeing happen, which was AB 47, which started the 

22 public participation process which we are currently going 

23 through hearings this next month on. 

24 I'm also very active in other areas with the architects. 

25 I'm a retired Navy Captain, and I have enjoyed serving the 

2 6 first four years of my appointment. I would hope that if you 
27 i see fit, that I would like to continue another four years. 






























CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. You have a very impressive 


MR. WARD: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've done a lot of things. 

Just so we learn a little, probably more than anything, 
can you tell us if the process of adopting new standards needs 
to be changed, or is it working adequately? 

MR. WARD: Well, as I said, this AB 47 is a big 
improvement in the process. The public participation process, 
which is currently going through right now as a monograph — 
and this is the first time that this monograph has been 
published, and the authority for that came from AB 47 — it 
consolidates this vast array of code information. It's turned 
out to be what I would call a much better public participation 
process that otherwise, by de facto, or by default, codes might 
have gotten in. Now I think they're being reviewed. 

And actually, this offers a good opportunity for the 
public to become a participant in the process. In the past, it 
was reactive. Now it's being proactive. So, if someone from 
the public says, ""Hey, I think this code shouldn't be here," 
or, ""This particular code should be here," they have the 
right and the opportunity to be published in this monograph, 
which is a big step forward. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't mean to prejudge the answer 
here, but is this a way of sort of maybe eliminating standards 
that are unnecessary — 

MR. WARD: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — or redundant? 


1 MR. WARD: Absolutely. 

2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you see that there might be a need 

3 to do that. 

4 MR. WARD: Yes, that's right. 

5 There was a study under the original review of all 

6 standards, and there was a follow on AB 1780, which is going 

7 through right now. We were advised through the executive 

8 summary of what the results of this repeal of all past codes 

9 and all of their basis of being there. 

10 I believe that there is going to be — not this cycle, but 

11 the next cycle — a number of those put in. 

12 The reason that we're going through this cycle on a rather 

13 limited view of changes on the current cycle is because of the 

14 change in format. This has been a rather massive amount of 

15 work. All of the building professionals that have to be 

16 involved in it are sort of overwhelmed with all the changes, so 

17 we're going to a national format as opposed to a regional 

18 format . 

19 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me inquire if there are questions 

20 from other Members at all? Senator Ayala. 

21 SENATOR AYALA: Do you come in contact with the State 

22 Architect? 

23 MR. WARD: Yes, I do. But this is on a more professional 

24 basis than it is with the Commission basis. 

25 Commission basis, we have had for administrative rules 

2 6 where there's been a fee change, they have come before us, the 

27 State Architect's Office, with changes. There's also code 

28 changes in here that have come through for both the structural 


1 safety as well as the accessibility. And that's been our 

2 contact, is on the testimony basis. 

3 SENATOR AYALA: The reason I asked is because, as a member 

4 of the Board of Education, we would hire an architect to draw 

5 the plans for the school. And when they got through with that, 

6 through a lot of changes, then we would have to take it to the 

7 State Architect to review, as if that architect wasn't 

8 qualified or wasn't certified, or something. 

9 Why that extra step? These people are certified 

10 architects. Why do they have to clear it with the State 

11 Architect, who delays the plans for weeks? 

12 But you're not involved with that at all. 

13 MR. WARD: No, the Commission doesn't oversee that 

14 process. 

15 There are interpretive regulations for the school house 

16 portion of the State Architect's functions. The Field Act 

17 itself has the prescriptive requirements in the regular part of 

18 the Title 24, and then there's the administrative Part I. The 

19 Part I that we've reviewed in the past has been fees. 

20 We don't — we would like, if possible, to have the 

21 interpretive regulation process, which has, to a certain 

22 degree, improved something that you're talking about, which is 

23 portable construction, they've just changed the new procedure. 

24 But unfortunately, this is only brought to us when they 

25 actually do it. 

26 SENATOR AYALA: Not necessarily portable. It's just, you 

27 know, permanent structures also go through the same process of 

28 having the local architect go through the whole thing, and draw 


1 up plans accordingly, then have to bring it to the state for 

2 final determination, which delays the plans for a month or so. 

3 It never made sense to me. 

4 MR. WARD: Well, my primary practice is schools, and I 

5 have been trying to improve the process as a private architect, 

6 not as a Building Standards Commissioner, because we don't look 

7 at this. 

8 There have, just recently, this year, as a matter of fact, 

9 in the local school project is the first time that we're going 

10 through this process. And there's some bugs involved in it, 

11 but it has eliminated the plan check process. 

12 SENATOR AYALA: That has been eliminated? 

13 MR. WARD: For portable construction, yes, using the new 

14 procedures. 

15 SENATOR AYALA: But I'm referring to permanent structures. 

16 MR. WARD: Well, the way I look at it is, if the system 

17 works, it certainly shows a reason to propose having the 

18 architects continue on in permanent portions or other portions 

19 of school house regulated activities. 

20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris. 

21 SENATOR PETRIS: Does your review to develop building 

22 standards include the quality of materials, and certain 

23 standards for the quality? 

24 MR. WARD: There are standards by reference that are 

25 contained in the building codes, and that portion is an adopted 

26 portion that goes through the Commission, yes, sir. 

27 SENATOR PETRIS: By reference. 

28 MR. WARD: By reference. 


1 SENATOR PETRIS: I was thinking of plastics in particular. 

2 I ran across a problem in my district which turns out to be 

3 universal throughout the state, affecting, as far as we know, 

4 at least a half a million homes, maybe more. 

5 This plastic, foamy substance is being used to mix with 

6 the virgin resin, which is the only material that's supposed to 

7 be used. And it started at 5 percent illegal, to 10 percent, 

8 to 15, and it went as high as 90 percent, which some 

9 manufacturers — there's only a handful, but it's enough — and 

10 they unload this plastic on an unknown, unwitting builder, for 

11 example. And it turns out that, after a relatively short time, 

12 maybe as little as five years, the material falls apart. 

13 ABS, I'm trying to think of the name of it. The material 

14 falls apart, and the waste starts oozing through the house, 

15 through the walls of the kitchen, and the walls of the living 

16 room. Which means all that garbage comes through the home. 

17 And it costs enormously. You practically have to rebuild 

18 the house to fix it. 

19 Now, when something like that comes to your attention, do 

20 you as a board initiate some kind of inquiry or have hearings? 

21 Or is that beyond the scope? 

22 MR. WARD: This is actually the first time that I have 

23 heard of that. I will look into it. 

24 The issues of plastic pipes is something that, since I've 

25 been on the Commission, nothing — no issues, no code issues, 

26 have come before us in that area. 

27 SENATOR PETRIS: You don't have any scouts that go out 

28 surveying the field, then? 


1 MR. WARD: Well — 

2 SENATOR PETRIS: I mean, we had hearings up here last 

3 year, very extensive hearings in both Houses that detailed 

4 dramatically, with pictures and everything else, how horrible 

5 this stuff was. 

6 It's a health menace. It's deposited under the house, for 

7 example. 

8 I can't believe that it didn't come before the attention, 

9 somehow or other, of the Building Standards Commission. It 

10 affects that quality of material that goes into the property. 

11 MR. WARD: This really sounds very bad. I will look into 

12 it, but — 

13 SENATOR PETRIS: I'll be happy to send you information 

14 that we have on it — 

15 MR. WARD: All right. 

16 SENATOR PETRIS: — and have your people take it from 

17 there . 

18 MR. WARD: Sure. That would be very good. 

19 The issue of plastic pipe was addressed long before I got 

20 to the Commission, and that had to do with the use of plastic 

21 pipe or not. 

22 SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, that was switching from metal to 

23 plastic in the first place. 

24 MR. WARD: That's right. 

25 SENATOR PETRIS: As sometimes happens, you get a few bad 
2 6 apples in the industry — 

27 MR. WARD: This sounds like a different issue. 



1 MR. WARD: Yes, sir. Thank you. 

2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone present who wishes to 

3 make any comment at all? 

4 Let me ask Members if you're ready to — 

5 SENATOR AYALA: I'll be glad to move it. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: With recommendation to confirm. 

7 May I record the three of us present as voting aye? That 

8 will be the order. 

9 [Thereupon, Senator Lewis later 

10 returned to Committee and voted 

11 in favor of the confirmation, making 

12 the final vote 4-0.] 

13 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck to you. We appreciate 

14 getting your time donated to the state this way, and it's a 

15 good deal for us and I hope it's acceptable for you. 

16 MR. WARD: Thank you, Senator. 

17 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

18 Mr. Youssef, I point out, is a U.S.C. person. 

19 SENATOR AYALA: I move the nomination. 

20 [Laughter.] 

21 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you want to begin with any 

22 statement at all? 

23 MR. YOUSSEF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really 

24 appreciate your time, with all your busy schedules, for being 

25 here, taking the time to address this. 

26 I'm a registered structural engineer with a focus on 

27 structural engineering and a training in earthguake 

28 engineering. 


1 I've chaired several committees for the Structural 

2 Engineers of Southern California and the state at large, and I 

3 went on to chair the Vision 2000, which kind of moved towards 

4 future codes. 

5 On the national level, I was very involved with the BSSC, 

6 which is the Building Seismic Safety Council, the National 

7 Science Foundation, the FEMA, which tries to bring kind of a 

8 national perspective to codes and development of future codes, 

9 with the interest of protecting the public's life safety, 

10 basically, with good engineering. 

11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You didn't do the L.A. subway; did you? 

12 MR. YOUSSEF: No. 

13 [Laughter.] 

14 MR. YOUSSEF: We work above grade. We only get the ground 

15 motioning below grade. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You heard our similar inquiries if it's 

17 been your observation that there is a need to streamline the 

18 codes, or are there redundant or unnecessary standards at all? 

19 MR. YOUSSEF: The reason, after Chairing Seismology, I 

20 started a thought of this Vision 2000, because our codes got 

21 so meticulous, and there was a lot of what we call — a lot of 

22 Latin words. And we spent a lot of time interpreting, rather 

23 than really addressing the core issues. 

24 And we center — we kind of centered around a veil of 

25 safety that we know all the specifics, and we're going to 

26 address all types of buildings within that simplified code 

27 approach, rather than pulling back and having a more 

28 prospective approach, that engineers can use their judgment, 


1 and engaging also the developer, the financial world, and 

2 insurance about their vested interests, and the different 

3 levels of performance that they can engage, rather than these 

4 minimal standards. 

5 I was obviously quoted after the Northridge Earthquake of 

6 being critical of a lack of training and proper certification 

7 of inspectors. That's why we got some less than better quality 

8 of construction. We faced that in the Northridge Earthquake 

9 and the cost to the state. 

10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Questions from either gentleman on the 

11 Senate side? 

12 SENATOR AYALA: I take my recommendation back. He's a 

13 member of the U.S.C. Alumni, but you didn't attend, did you? 

14 MR. YOUSSEF: No, sir. 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Oh, well, that's even better, though. 

16 [Laughter.] 

17 MR. YOUSSEF: But I'm lecturing at U.S.C. Architectural 

18 Engineering Program. I'm making up for it. 

19 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any questions at all, or are you ready 

20 to — 

21 SENATOR PETRIS: I'd like to ask him, did this pipe thing 

22 come to your attention? 

23 MR. YOUSSEF: No, I'm recent on this committee. And 

24 honestly, I don't have too much of a background in policy. I'm 

25 more of the structural technical advisor on this committee, and 

26 finding my way through it yet. 

27 SENATOR PETRIS: There's another pipe problem also in my 

28 district. The water company has had a lot of its pipes just 


1 break, and water's flooding all over the place in many parts of 

2 the district. 

3 And these are not ABS pipes that I talked about earlier. 

4 These are other pipes. 

5 I would appreciate it if you might make some inquiries 

6 about that as well. You know, especially in the water system 

7 that carries potable water for use in residential places, we 

8 shouldn't be exposing it to those kinds of problems. 

9 And it's not any negligence on the part of the district, 

10 the water district that's using it. They buy these pipes, and 

11 they put them in place, and they use them, and then after a 

12 while — right now, there have been a lot of stories where 

13 they're just breaking apart. 

14 I know you don't have a disciplinary function on the 

15 board, but it seems to me that you might put the spotlight on 

16 it somehow or other and find out what's happening, particularly 

17 when some new standard is up for review. You might re-open the 

18 old standard. 

19 I don't think it's a question of a problem with the 

20 standards. It's, again, somebody's at fault somewhere along 

21 the line in not complying. But I think your group should know 

22 about that. 

23 MR. YOUSSEF: I'd be very interested to look into it. 

24 Thank you for your input. 

25 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

26 SENATOR AYALA: I will officially move the confirmation. 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, we have a motion. Call the 

28 roll. 


1 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


3 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. Senator 

4 Petris. 


6 SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. Senator 

7 Lockyer . 


9 SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. 

10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's leave the roll open again. 

11 [Thereupon, Senator Lewis later 

12 returned to Committee and voted 

13 in favor of the confirmation, making 

14 the final vote 4-0.] 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

16 MR. YOUSSEF: Thank you. 

17 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We appreciate your service to the 

18 state. 

19 MR. YOUSSEF: Thank you very much. 

20 [Thereupon this portion of the 

21 Senate Rules Committee hearing 

22 was terminated at approximately 

23 3:26 P.M. ] 

24 — ooOoo — 
















I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of 
the State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 

13 e-]jtL 

hand this / day of June, 1995. 


19 ^~~?^ Shorthand Reporter 





Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.75 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 281-R when ordering.